What's new

CPC proposes change on Chinese president's term in Constitution

i don't think he will ruling China more than 20 years.
Xi might think his job not finish yet, to wipe out Corroption inside the party and Unify China under his Terms.. because only a strong leader like Xi who can do the job.
if he don't Ruling for another 10 years, his predecessor not as strong as him.. his effort to curb corruption inside the party will back to square one.
So you mean the biggest party on EARTH( CCP is over 85 million strong if Im not wrong) has just one man who is serious about 'fighting corruption '?
If that's true (which is impossible) then something is really wrong with the party itself. Will mean they got it all wrong (which i don't think is the case,)
 
Last edited:
I will repost an excerpt from an article for the benefit of those who can read Chinese, because I think it's relevant. The article was written before the 19th Congress.

李光耀模式最适合中国

郑永年不讳言,这种改变的背后当然存在意识形态的因素,但他认为,中共采取的一些做法还是作为工具的意义多一些。

不久前,郑永年在《联合早报》撰文指出,十九大以后中国政治的发展,可能是普京模式、蒋经国模式、李光耀模式,这三者之一。

他在接受本报专访时说,三者之中,他个人希望中国采取李光耀模式,并相信这依然是最适合中国的模式,李光耀模式的特点是开放的一党制,以内部多元主义来吸纳民主化的压力,并且将个人的权力转换为制度的权力。

反之,如果中国走普京模式,也可能导致台湾模式。郑永年解释说,普京模式是个人集权,制度权力很弱,这个结果“很危险”。因为中国民主化的基础已经存在,利益分化、中产阶层正在形成,“你这个时期集权可以,但以后呢?可能绷不住就会走向台湾模式。”

蒋经国模式是从威权走向多党制、政治多元,但看看台湾目前的形势,郑永年认为,是否要采取蒋经国模式,还需要重新思考。

在郑永年看,习近平“还是希望像李光耀模式”,中国明年要设立国家监察委、军队改革走的也都是制度化的模式。“如果是想像普京那样一会儿当总统一会儿当总理,那就完全是个人化的集权,那是不一样的。”

“新加坡是制度比较集权,不是个人比较集权;要集权,如果没有李光耀这样先从个人集权转换到制度集权,还是做不成的。”

http://www.zaobao.com.sg/znews/greater-china/story20170925-797821
http://www.zaobao.com.sg/zopinions/views/story20170912-794605

We will see whether Xi is able to institutionalize and legally define the powers officials have, with the power he have now to establish the rule of law. Or whether he's going for the Putin model.
 
Last edited:
he don't Ruling for another 10 years, his predecessor not as strong as him.. his effort to curb corruption inside the party will back to square one.
Lol what you just said is exactly the same thing I kept hearing when I visited some countries in Africa and the middle East to justify why the dictator should continue his eternal rule, since they said he is the only one who can properly rule, stabilise and lead the country forward. Lol

don't think he will ruling China more than 20 years
How do you know he will be happy with just 20 years ? Looking at history and even the present there's a high chance you will be wrong . How many leaders from the developing world have willingly left power when they didn't have to(no terms limits)?:D
 
Lol what you just said is exactly the same thing I kept hearing when I visited some countries in Africa and the middle East to justify why the dictator should continue his eternal rule, since they said he is the only one who can properly rule, stabilise and lead the country forward. Lol


How do you know he will be happy with just 20 years ? Looking at history and even the present there's a high chance you will be wrong . How many leaders from the developing world have willingly left power when they didn't have to(no terms limits)?:D

fortunately, China is not africa.
just because the west afraid with one man holding all the power, doesn't mean China should follow the narrative.

Because Xi want a good name in China history and his action will be judge in the future whether he is a great leader or the worst leader, he's also not a man who leave the job half done.
 
Lee Kuan Yew from Singapore? Mahathir from Malaysia?
You can't compare Singapore's situation when Lee took power the country had just gained independence and separated from malaysia, facing an uncertain future in a hostile neighbourhood as a small new countryc The foundations for the country were not yet laid, thus in the case of a small city state like Singapore it might be understandable that Lee needed to rule for that long for a couple of decades to set up the country's fundamentals. However, For a big power like China who has had a relatively stable foundations laid already, peaceful constant transition of power coupled eoth a mature collective system of leadership, with constant economic growth, its difficult to see why a strong man will want to concentrate power around him and go to the forbidden dangerous path of lifting term limits altogether. That's kind of unsettling.

fortunately, China is not africa.
just because the west afraid with one man holding all the power, doesn't mean China should follow the narrative.

.
Huh. ... So this was done to counter the West isn't it? Xi is accumulating absolute power into his hands to upset and counter the West I suppose.
Seems your previous leaders were all following the west's narrative then. :D
 
...its difficult to see why a strong man will want to concentrate power around him and go to the forbidden dangerous path of lifting term limits altogether. That's kind of unsettling.
I gave Xi the benefit of the doubt back on page 7. However, reality has to set in some time. The Chinese members of this forum believes in the myth of a 'benevolent dictatorship' and paradoxically, the forcible unification of Taiwan back into the Chinese fold is the best demonstrator of that dictatorship.
 
Wow.... I didnt expect this. If they do lift the term limits then Xi will be ruling China for a longgggg time to come. We humans are naturally greedy and power hungry. I dontd think Xi will leave power when he doesn't have to anymore. It might become like other developing countries in Africa and the Middle East ruled by one strong man with a cult like personality.
Will be interesting to see.

Well, the same reasoning can be applied to UK too. There is no term limit for PM, and of cause no term limit for your King or Queen.

There are many western democracies that do not have the term limit, so I am wondering what makes China's new move so unacceptable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_term_limits#Americas
 
Last edited:
I gave Xi the benefit of the doubt back on page 7. However, reality has to set in some time. The Chinese members of this forum believes in the myth of a 'benevolent dictatorship' and paradoxically, the forcible unification of Taiwan back into the Chinese fold is the best demonstrator of that dictatorship.
Well, as I said before, have heard arguments about justifying such stronf men who eant to cling to power past term limits. Its always the same: HesH the only ono who csn rule the country properly, without him there will be instability/corruption (never mibd that the leader in those situations came through the same system they call as corrupt, he's the only one totcapable to move the country forward etc etc). The funny thing in this particular case is that if Xi's predecessors were as power hungry and able to accumulate power in their hands as Xi then Xi would never have been given the chance to be president. That's the irony of dictators.
 
You can't compare Singapore's situation when Lee took power the country had just gained independence and separated from malaysia, facing an uncertain future in a hostile neighbourhood as a small new countryc The foundations for the country were not yet laid, thus in the case of a small city state like Singapore it might be understandable that Lee needed to rule for that long for a couple of decades to set up the country's fundamentals. However, For a big power like China who has had a relatively stable foundations laid already, peaceful constant transition of power coupled eoth a mature collective system of leadership, with constant economic growth, its difficult to see why a strong man will want to concentrate power around him and go to the forbidden dangerous path of lifting term limits altogether. That's kind of unsettling.


Huh. ... So this was done to counter the West isn't it? Xi is accumulating absolute power into his hands to upset and counter the West I suppose.
Seems your previous leaders were all following the west's narrative then. :D
Why cannot compare Singapore's situation with China.?
With a troublesome neighbor at the back who are partners with the CIA to foment insurgency and secession in Tibet.
Probable unrest in Xinjiang.
Troublemakers in Hong Kong.
Impending reunification with Taiwan.
Unfinished business in the South China Sea with squatters still occupying Chinese islands.
Most importantly, the US is doubling down its efforts to sabotage the rise of China.
There are still much business requiring a strong leader of Xi's calibre.

What are the long term consequences from this short term gain post Xi.?
Can the world afford a political flaw in a country with the military and economic might of China.
Judging from the past performance of a strong China with Confucian values I wouldn't worry too much.
I agree the Chinese should deliberate carefully on this not trivial change to their constitution.
.
 
Well, the same reasoning can be applied to UK too. There is no term limit for PM, and of cause no term limit for your King or Queen.
The Queen has no real power in U. K, she's just plays a ceremonial role. It's the prime minister who is like the president and runs the country. I'm sure you already knew that though.:)
 
Well, the same reasoning can be applied to UK too. There is no term limit for PM, and of cause no term limit for your King or Queen.

There are many western democracies that do not have the term limit, so I am wondering what makes China's new move so unacceptable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_term_limits#Americas
In the case of a constitutional monarchy, the crown is the 'head of state' while the prime minister is 'head of government'. The PM is generally elected by his party and it is up to the party to set term limits. Further, checks and balances in many Western democracies are more than just theoretical, they are actually applied, while checks and balances in the Chinese government is mostly theoretical.

The US president is unique in that the office is both 'head of state' and 'head of government', and the Americans decided that two terms are enough for any person.

What make the change so critical? You do not think it is unusual to grant someone additional tenure of political power? We are looking for restraints. You are advocating disinhibition.
 
Next action is president for Life !
lol, atleast US can get rid of trump but china will be stuck with one.
 
The Queen has no real power in U. K, she's just plays a ceremonial role. It's the prime minister who is like the president and runs the country. I'm sure you already knew that though.:)


Yeah, I know, but I just don't really understand why a modern western democracy like UK needs a Queen to play a "Ceremonial role" for a perfectly functional country. To many, it is just a huge waste of tax payers' money. Anyway, it is UK's business.

Precisely because China is a developing country with 1.4 billion people, Xi may need more time to keep the momentum going. Besides, Xi obviously has the unification of China in mind, and the time seems ripe. If he needs one more term to finish the unfinished business, so be it. As for term limit, let's not accuse others for what yourself is "guilty" of.

In the case of a constitutional monarchy, the crown is the 'head of state' while the prime minister is 'head of government'. The PM is generally elected by his party and it is up to the party to set term limits. Further, checks and balances in many Western democracies are more than just theoretical, they are actually applied, while checks and balances in the Chinese government is mostly theoretical.

The US president is unique in that the office is both 'head of state' and 'head of government', and the Americans decided that two terms are enough for any person.

What make the change so critical? You do not think it is unusual to grant someone additional tenure of political power? We are looking for restraints. You are advocating disinhibition.

It sounds like a twisted logic. So it is alright for a democracy to have unlimited terms, but it not OK for a "dictator" to have more than 2 terms?
 
Xi Jinping as president beyond 2023 may be good for China – though the West won’t believe it
PUBLISHED : Monday, 26 February, 2018, 5:40pm
UPDATED : Monday, 26 February, 2018, 5:40pm

4d8a66e4-1ace-11e8-804d-87987865af94_1280x720_173957.jpg


Tom Plate says China’s move to scrap the presidential term limit cannot be seen purely in black and white terms. Strongman leadership is not reviled in Asia the way it is in the West, and an argument could be made to challenge America’s own belief in presidential term limits

And so the Communist Party of China recommends to the National People’s Congress the removal of China’s rough equivalent of America’s 22nd amendment – two terms at most for the top leader. Anyone who didn’t see this “surprise” coming needs to have her or his China-watcher eyeglass prescription carefully re-examined. Now the way is paved for a long march by incumbent President Xi Jinping, conceivably for as long as he can stand the difficult job of being No 1 for 1.4 billion people, and for as long as – in some sense – the Chinese people can be happy with the notion of him continuing to do it.

Change to Chinese presidency term limits could signal overhaul of role
Naturally, the reaction in America is already climbing towards the semi-hysterical. A law professor at the respected Fordham University in New York termed the move nothing less than a new step “in the continuing breakdown of political norms that had sway in China’s reform era”.

The widely admired Susan Shirk, at the University of California, San Diego, takes the dim view that “the risk of policy misjudgments is greater than it has been under any other leader since Mao died”. Concludes Professor Shirk, who in the late 1990s served honourably and well as the deputy assistant secretary of state in charge of worrying about China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: “Xi is now unfettered. He owns the entire policy process.”

Maybe. What we know for sure about this move is that, one, Xi wanted the term limits axed and, two, no one who might not have wanted it was strong enough to stand up against him.

First he swept up corrupt officials. Now Xi is tightening party control
What we don’t know, though, is a much longer list, and this includes whether in fact this will prove such a terrible idea, or even whether by 2023, when the end of his second term would have ticked to an end, Xi will still have enough steel in his stomach to soldier on, not to mention the Olympian will deemed to keep enemies at bay, his age notwithstanding.

So the more positive question that might be asked in the West is whether continuity of leadership by personality will hold China back, as Mao Zedong’s long run did, and at the same time threaten the West and its friends in Asia? Or will there be value for China and the world to keeping one man at the top?
0c49c864-1ad3-11e8-804d-87987865af94_1320x770_173957.JPG


In Asia, to generalise, the ideological evil of authoritarianism is not universally accepted. Consider: without the late General Suharto, with all his many faults, a nation left behind as recklessly as Indonesia was by the Dutch when they scampered back to their dykes could not possibly have been held together except by authoritarian will – whether of the left or the right.

And, over the decades, neither Singapore nor even Malaysia seemed to have been crippled by strong-armed leaders. Indeed, Singapore’s founding prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, left behind a country that is a contemporary gold standard for governance. And even today, some in Malaysia like the idea of strong-minded Dr Mahathir Mohamad, now 92, returning to power.

Lee Kuan Yew proved the virtues of a strong government
Here in America, an axiomatic belief in the superiority of our democratic system is not at an all-time high. This is not entirely due to the burlesque of a government laid before our eyes daily by Donald Trump, who, unlike Xi, did not pay his learning dues at lower levels of government. Rather, it is also because of the growing sense that what may have worked well in the past may not work, even for America, as well in the future; and, in addition, for the foreseeable future, democracy of whatever kind might never work magically in many places elsewhere.

What’s more, America’s belief in the redemptive value of term limits merits further examination. In some political jurisdictions, it has helped bring in new blood; but, in others, it has replaced seasoned leaders with fresh nonsensical amateurs, to the detriment of good governance.

Indeed, in the 20th century, most assessments of presidential performance would place Franklin D. Roosevelt, our 32nd president, at the top of the list. He was elected not just to three terms but four. In 1951, the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution was ratified, which seemed like a good idea at the time; and perhaps even more so now. But there were moments in-between when America had its doubts about the constitutional dogmatism of having to force someone out of office who was doing the job well.

Xi may stay well beyond 2023 or leave exactly then. Now the choice is his to make. He will be judged not by how long he stays but by how well China does while he is at the top.

Xi will be judged not by how long he stays but by how well China does while he is at the top
China as a civilisation and nation has more staying power than any one man. The quality of the leader is undoubtedly one main factor – but it is only one. Former president Jiang Zemin had as his No 2 the amazingly capable Zhu Rongji: would as much have been done without him?

No-term-limits Xi is said to be bringing back as vice-president his anti-corruption tsar Wang Qishan. The former Beijing mayor has moved over to the National People’s Congress and, gossip has it, is waiting for the next green light upwards. Presumably, if Xi wants him as his vice-president, then that is what he will become.

Why is it that the West will always respond to any political event in China with all the enthusiasm of a funeral director? Has China achieved nothing in past decades that merits approval?

Who really knows how this will turn out? Conceivably, Xi could prove the very model of an anti-Mao and China’s development will proceed apace with improving government.

Columnist Tom Plate, author of Yo-Yo Diplomacy and the Giants of Asia series, is Loyola Marymount University’s Distinguished Scholar of Asian and Pacific Affairs, and vice-president at Pacific Century Institute
Patriotic Chinese already know that if Western media praises China, it's usually bad news for China. When they demonize China it's good for China in the long term.
Their tactics are getting too redundant and too 200 A.D.

fortunately, China is not africa.
just because the west afraid with one man holding all the power, doesn't mean China should follow the narrative.

Because Xi want a good name in China history and his action will be judge in the future whether he is a great leader or the worst leader, he's also not a man who leave the job half done.
I'm not understanding why the Indian monkeys and albinos are so upset about this. It doesn't even concern them. And if they think it's a bad thing for China they should encourage it. The fact they (west and white wannabes) are so pissed off at this situation that doesn't concern them mean it's a positive thing for the Chinese nation. Reunification will be sooner than later. The monkeys here cannot do shit about it.
:cheers:
No need to carry on the endless debate with things that don't concern them.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom