Some people have praised China's recent passage of a property rights law. They believe it is a key step in China's move toward market economics, and even a sign of the imminent end of China's "socialism." But if one steps outside the framework of economic law to look at things objectively, there are three serious issues to consider.
First, those who are ethusiastic about the law mistakenly believe that economic growth is the only facet of China's development and that perfecting market economics represents progress.
Structural issues concerning the economic system are not the only obstacles to building a market economy. Without an independent legal system loyal to the rule of law, without an informed and independent public opinion free from government control, and without a progressive spirit and culture, market economics are just deformed capitalism. China's economic development is, for the most part, precisely this. This model cannot be corrected by passing a law.
Second, China's problem isn't that it doesn't have laws. The problem is that it doesn't enforce them, making its laws worth little more than the paper they are written on. Since it first inked its Constitution, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has never enforced either the principles outlined in the Constitution or the country's laws. To these officials, laws are a propaganda tool serving the government. They cite laws when it suits them and tear the laws to shreds at other times.
Third, some people worry the law will be used to legalize various corrupt practices that are already widespread. State-owned assets will be swallowed, city residents will be forced to move, farmers' lands will be seized, monopolistic enterprises will exploit high prices and bank shares will be sold below value.
These concerns are connected to the most urgent problem facing China today -- political reform. Without protection from government laws, the property rights law could very easily end up as a tool for corrupt powers to legalize their corruption.
The property rights law and talk of a harmonious society are all well and good, but they are little more than empty words. Until China pursues systematic and sincere politicial reform, empty lip service won't be much to get excited about.
Wang Dan is a member of the Chinese democracy movement and a visiting scholar at Harvard University.
Translated by Marc Langer
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers