Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

chinese food safety official sentenced to execution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • chinese food safety official sentenced to execution

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/6286698.stm

    Zheng Xiaoyu was sentenced to execution for his involvement in the recent "melamine scandal" and other food and safety issues. he was found guilty of accepting bribes from companies who wanted to avoid inspection.

    it's encouraging to see the chinese government punish someone who's actions have harmed many people and disgraced the nation. i'd love to see something like that here in the philippines, but we are too catholic and forgiving, corrupt officials get paroled or simply go totally unpunished.

    the question is, are executions really going to change things in china? or is it more of a way to save face?

  • #2
    Originally posted by ghostkru View Post
    the question is, are executions really going to change things in china?
    IMHO, the answer must be Yes and No, at the same time.

    Yes, the Chinese communist government would want to indicate they are serious in wanting to punish the wrong doers. So it will do some good, to warn other corrupt officials and companies about doing such unethical and harmful acts

    No, because corruption and poor governance cannot be eradicated so easily in China. The problem is that the political system in China does not lend itself easily to transparency (and there is no such culture of transparency) or have the traditional ideas of checks and balances prevalent in western models.

    Originally posted by ghostkru View Post
    or is it more of a way to save face?
    I think the punishment given is more than just saving face. Its about legitimacy of the CCP. If they fail to act, they can lose legitimacy in front of their own people.

    That's just my 2 cents as an external observer.
    Last edited by sunnyamy; 26 Jan 09,, 07:49.

    Comment


    • #3
      Based on my dealings with and reading about the PRC, I agree with sunnyamy.

      The CCP, along with most Communist governments has operated on the principle of "feather your nest but don't get caught because you'll get a bullet in the back of your head...after a suitably 'fair' trail of course".
      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

      Comment


      • #4
        The real question should be "did they get the right guy?"

        How do we know he's not just some scape goat? Are we sure the officials who put him on trial aren't themselves being compromised?
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
          How do we know he's not just some scape goat? Are we sure the officials who put him on trial aren't themselves being compromised?
          The guy they're going to pop is probably culpable somehow, but yeah, somehow he's probably some sacrificial lamb.
          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

          Comment


          • #6
            I think the punishment given is more than just saving face. Its about legitimacy of the CCP. If they fail to act, they can lose legitimacy in front of their own people.
            yeah, I have to think about that concept, a government that worries about legitimacy............
            “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

            Comment


            • #7
              checks and balances prevalent in western models
              In an ideal world sure, but as we learned from the current economic crisis and the recent gulf war, it might not work too well in real life.

              All those laws, transparency, checks and balances in the book will not work if the people do not demand accountability and if people are indifference.
              Last edited by xinhui; 26 Jan 09,, 19:53.
              “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by xinhui View Post
                yeah, I have to think about that concept, a government that worries about legitimacy............
                xinhui, your posts always make me take a step back to think. I like. :)

                I also like that I often learn from your posts. Hehe

                IMHO, people should not be afraid of their government, instead governments should be afraid of their people (if they fail to govern with integrity and abuse that trust). Which is something along the lines of the idea behind the movie "V is for Vendetta".

                However, the above ideal will not work at all in relation to despotic regimes (for example in North Korea and Myanmar). These 2 regimes have shown an ability to ignore the will of their respective people, employ violence anyone who oppose them and to resist any international pressure for change.

                Originally posted by xinhui View Post
                In an ideal world sure, but as we learned from the current economic crisis and the recent gulf war, it might not work too well in real life.

                All those laws, transparency, checks and balances in the book will not work if the people do not demand accountability and if people are indifference.
                Agreed.

                The aim in this post is to apply our collective insights to enrich analysis.

                Conceptually, it is hard to critique what one does not understand. Food safety regulations and financial industry regulations are often more technical and less sexy than other areas of regulatory interest. This is especially true in relation to the making of rules and regulations (for example the financial industry), where very few people can understand the impact/implications of changes to an existing framework in the making of regulations (which can be woefully inadequate in some areas). And certain legal and political systems are often seen as better at managing certain types of complexity.

                IMHO, in general, such overtly technical areas do not lend themselves to the concept of general public oversight, simply because the public may not understand or be able to fully articulate that demand for accountability into meaningful action. In someways it is easier to protest against any industry than to work to regulate it.

                For example, I have no ability to lobby with a political voice a general demand for accountability (as there is so little mainstream interest in changes in regulations of a technical nature). And this is me speaking as a person who is involved in some disclosure related issues at work (in relation to public companies in my country).

                Further, there are 2 questions that need to be addressed in any analysis of new regulations. One, are new laws really needed? Two, if new laws are needed, are the proposed changes proportionate, to their aims and do they have other unintended effects?

                According to Professor Lawrence Lessig, the limits to law as a regulator include “norms, markets and architecture.” Laws can threaten punishment if they are not obeyed. Unlike common law, which evolves by analogy, statutory laws and regulations are best able to deal with disruptive change. A market crisis is a disruptive change, so the temptation is to keep creating new legislation and new regulations to address a market crisis. However, statutory laws and regulations are like antibiotics. Just as the excessive use of antibiotics has a negative effect on the human body’s natural immune system, over legislation and the rapid introduction of regulation can kill innovation so essential to business growth.
                Last edited by sunnyamy; 27 Jan 09,, 01:16.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by sunnyamy View Post
                  xinhui, your posts always make me take a step back to think. I like. :)
                  You should see us when we have a ureka moment. Flood gates open as a lot of info we have collected all the sudden made sense.

                  Originally posted by sunnyamy View Post
                  I also like that I often learn from your posts. Hehe
                  Hang around us a bit more and you'll start to be confused. Not that it's intentional but the whole sleuth of info Andy gets at times contradict each other.

                  Originally posted by sunnyamy View Post
                  IMHO, people should not be afraid of their government, instead governments should be afraid of their people (if they fail to govern with integrity and abuse that trust). Which is something along the lines of the idea behind the movie "V is for Vendetta".
                  I have said this in the past. Every country in the world is a democracy. People vote either by ballet or by bullet.

                  Originally posted by sunnyamy View Post
                  However, the above ideal will not work at all in relation to despotic regimes (for example in North Korea and Myanmar). These 2 regimes have shown an ability to ignore the will of their respective people, employ violence anyone who oppose them and to resist any international pressure for change.
                  To stay in power, you need two of three things: money, guns, people support.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    Hang around us a bit more and you'll start to be confused.
                    Colonel,this has to be one of the most blatant cases of gross understatement I have ever seen you post.Most of the time after reading your and Andy's discourses about China and attempting to wrap what little remains of my gray matter around the subject,I tend to shamble away from the computer shaking my head and babbling incoherently while the wife follows along behind trying valiantly to mop up the trail of drool I've left on the floor.However,it is never,ever boring;).
                    "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." Thomas Jefferson

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Just make him drink some milk.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I used to be indifferent about this matter...

                        ...Then I went to the asian grocery to buy "white rabbit" candies, only to be told they wont be stocked anymore as they were one of the articles implicated in the melamine scandal.

                        Death is too good for the bastard!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by xinhui View Post
                          In an ideal world sure, but as we learned from the current economic crisis and the recent gulf war, it might not work too well in real life.

                          All those laws, transparency, checks and balances in the book will not work if the people do not demand accountability and if people are indifference.
                          So true, to question the government is a vital part of maintaining a democracy. As critical as some are of the press it serves a vital purpose. A government must believe in government to be effective. The fact the peanut plant that has killed people in the US got off so lightly for major violations the last few years says it all. It will be interesting to see who looses their jobs and if violations stop being viewed so lightly. I have much more faith in our system responding with more vigilance than the Chinese one. We had a government that didn't believe industry should be "punished" for violations and was against regulation in principle. It's easier to change than a system that fails because of corruption.
                          Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                          ~Ronald Reagan

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This is a very big political statement China is making, more than anything else.

                            I'm sure Zheng isn't the only person that's guilty of corruption within this State Food and Drug Administration

                            Nebula82.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by sunnyamy View Post
                              IMHO, the answer must be Yes and No, at the same time.

                              Yes, the Chinese communist government would want to indicate they are serious in wanting to punish the wrong doers. So it will do some good, to warn other corrupt officials and companies about doing such unethical and harmful acts

                              No, because corruption and poor governance cannot be eradicated so easily in China. The problem is that the political system in China does not lend itself easily to transparency (and there is no such culture of transparency) or have the traditional ideas of checks and balances prevalent in western models.
                              That's true, but I do think in recent years China has become more decentralised and less ideological, and that has given way to some limited economic freedoms. And I think transparency has improved somewhat since the SARs outbreak.

                              However we’ve seen very few changes in the rule of law, individual rights and political transparency, and I do not see how China can continue its prosperity without advancing in these areas. I think the Chinese people look forward to the day their political freedoms equal their economic freedoms!

                              It’s very telling that China sees Singapore, rather than Hong Kong, as a model for its future economic & social development in terms of the future path it’s going to take.

                              Nebula82.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X