Tag Archives: government

PRC, Hong Kong, and Rights

Posted on by
2

The situation in Hong Kong, which the People’s Republic of China has created with its high-handed treatment of the Special Administrative Region, is getting tighter.

[Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying] Leung told voters it is better to agree to Beijing’s plans for nominating candidates and to hold an election, than to stick with the current system of having an Election Commission choose the chief executive.

“It is definitely better to have universal suffrage than not,” Leung said. “It is definitely better to have the chief executive elected by 5 million eligible voters than by 1,200 people. And it is definitely better to cast your vote at the polling station than to stay home and watch on television the 1,200 members of the Election Committee cast their votes.”

This is cynically misleading. The 1,200 to whom Leung referred are the nominating committee of the Communist Party of China. They’ve been the ones—and they continue to be the ones, now formally under the control of the Party’s Standing Committee—who will determine who the candidates will be that those “5 million eligible voters” can select from. Those 5 million are only being allowed to rubber stamp the selection made by those 1,200. This is no elective choice. Of course, Leung and his PRC masters know this.

And

[PRC President] Xi Jinping, who has taken a hard line against any perceived threat to the Communist Party’s hold on power, vowed in a National Day speech to “steadfastly safeguard” Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability.

This is just wind in the trees. Xi knows full well that Beijing cannot “steadfastly safeguard” Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability. Only the people of Hong Kong, acting for and by themselves, without outside interference, can do that.

And

China’s government…so far it has not overtly intervened, leaving Hong Kong authorities to handle the crisis.

This is a misunderstanding. The Hong Kong authorities are in the streets, not in the government buildings. The people are sovereign over their government in a free state. Of course, this is hard to realize from inside a despotic state.

The protesters, upset that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has refused to meet them, have threatened to expand their demonstrations unless he resigns and the Chinese leadership agrees to broader electoral reforms.

It’s clear from the breadth of these protests, that the PRC has lost the consent of the Hong Kong-ese to govern them. PRC governance, thus, is illegitimate. This is corroborated by the protest news clampdown the PRC has done, especially in contrast to the freely flowing protest news within Hong Kong.

And finally, there’s this failure, this one from the West.

British Prime Minister David Cameron saying he planned to summon the Chinese ambassador to discuss the dispute, saying it is essential that Hong Kong’s people have a genuine right to choose their top leader.

This is an even greater misunderstanding, both by its existence and coming as it does from the leader of the birthplace of John Locke. No, Prime Minister, each one of Hong Kong’s people is created with an inalienable right to his own liberty and happiness. That means he has an inalienable right to choose his own government and the men who operate it. What is essential is that Hong Kong’s people have that right genuinely acknowledged and accepted.

More Party-of-No Yeses

Posted on by
Reply

The House passed three more bills in this short period before the mid-term election campaign recess.

One bill makes it illegal for IRS workers to use personal email accounts to conduct official business.

It’s already illegal to do this in many circumstances, as all official business communications must be recorded and saved. It’s also already contrary to IRS policy; although the IRS has ignored this policy whenever that became convenient.

This is, at bottom, an obvious move, too: private enterprise has, for years, held the flip side—the use of company equipment to conduct personal business—to be a fire-able offense; although they allow some limited personal use.

Another bill guarantees groups that are denied tax-exempt status the right to appeal the decision to a separate IRS office.

Also an obvious move. No government decision should be appeal-proof at the outset.

The third bill addresses complaints from groups that have had their confidential taxpayer information improperly disclosed by IRS employees. The bill allows the IRS to tell victims about the status of investigations into the disclosures. Current law forbids the IRS from releasing such information.

Here, I disagree slightly: the bill should require the IRS to disclose status information, not merely permit it. Still, it’s a step in the right direction.

Watch these three obvious moves die in the Democratic Party-controlled Senate.

How Does This Work?

Posted on by
Reply

A Senate investigation released Wednesday [17 Sep] found that hackers linked to the Chinese government broke into US military transportation companies’ computer networks 20 times in a year.

But the Senate Armed Services Committee says officials of the US Transportation Command, responsible for moving troops across the globe in times of crisis, were told about just two of those incidents. If a system was compromised, they may not have known, the panel said.

[Emphasis added.] How is it possible that military transporters were not told that systems on which their functions depended had been compromised? Who made the decision to withhold these critical data? Why is that person/those people not being called to account? Why are those contractors who sat on these data still under contract?

Federal Strings

Posted on by
Reply

…and Federal arrogance.

No police department should get federal funds unless they put cameras on officers, Senator Claire McCaskill (D, MO) said today.

“It seems to me that before we give federal funds to police departments, we ought to mandate that they have body cams,” McCaskill said.

Body cameras on cops may, in fact, be a good idea. However, that’s a thing to be determined by the locals for themselves. This is another example of how the Federal government seeks to control State and local governments in the place of the State’s citizens and the local community members.

Police departments and the communities that employ them would be well served to reject these Federal funds and all other Federal funds that come with strings attached. They would be well served to do so even if they already meet, of their own accord, the criteria mandated by any Federal string—accepting such funds would be nothing less than the camel’s nose in their tent.

Press Mindset

Posted on by
Reply

This is from an AP article, but I suggest it’s typical of the press generally. The AP is reporting on a case involving the drunk driver-involved deaths of two children and the immediately subsequent shooting death of the drunk driver. The father of the two children is accused of

killing a drunk driver in a fit of rage after his two sons were fatally struck in 2012 on a rural road in Southeast Texas.

His defense attorney says [the father] is a good man, a grieving father, and not a murderer. At the same time, his defense hasn’t publicly suggested who else might be responsible for [the drunk driver]’s shooting death.

Notice that last. According to the press, the father must, if not outright prove his innocence, at least offer plausible alternatives.

No. The press’…misunderstanding…notwithstanding, no such defense obligation exists. It’s on the prosecution—the government—to prove any defendant’s guilt; no police work, no investigative work at all, is required of the defense. Full stop.