China allows Xi to remain president indefinitely, tightening his grip on power

[webfact]

China allows Xi to remain president indefinitely, tightening his grip on power

By Ben Blanchard and Christian Shepherd

 

Delegates attend the third plenary session of the National People's Congress (NPC), where they will vote on a constitutional amendment lifting presidential term limits, at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China March 11, 2018. REUTERS/Jason Lee

 

BEIJING (Reuters) - China removed presidential term limits from its constitution on Sunday, giving President Xi Jinping the right to remain in office indefinitely, and confirming his status as the country's most powerful leader since Mao Zedong died more than 40 years ago.

 

China's ruling Communist Party announced the proposed amendment only last month and there was never any doubt it would pass as parliament is packed with loyal party members who would not have opposed the proposal.

 

The amendments also include inserting Xi's political theory into the constitution, something that was already added to the party charter in October at the end of a party congress, a feat no other leader since Mao had managed while in office. Additionally, clauses were included to give a legal framework to a new super anti-corruption department.

 

Only two "no" votes were cast, with three abstentions, from almost 3,000 delegates.

 

Reporters were briefly ushered from the main hall in the Great Hall of the People as delegates filled in their ballot papers, but allowed in to see them placing the papers, one by one, into large red ballot boxes around the room.

 

Xi cast his vote first, on the podium at the front of the hall, followed in turn by the other six members of the party's elite Standing Committee, which runs China.

The room erupted into loud applause when the result of the vote was passed, though Xi did not address parliament.

 

The limit of two five-year presidential terms was written into China's constitution in 1982 after Mao's death six years earlier by Deng Xiaoping, who recognised the dangers of one-man rule and the cult of personality after the chaos of the Cultural Revolution and instead espoused collective leadership.

 

Speaking later to reporters, Shen Chunyao, chairman of the Legislative Affairs Commission of parliament's standing committee, dismissed concerns the move could risk a return to strongman rule or lead to political turmoil or infighting.

 

"As for the assumptions, conjecture and stretched situations in your question, I think that does not exist," Shen said.

 

In the past nine decades of the party's history it has overcome hardships and resolved major problems, including orderly leadership transitions and keeping the party and country's vitality and long-term stability, he added.

 

"In the nearly 40 years of reform and opening up, we have successfully established, upheld and expanded the political development road of socialism with Chinese characteristics," Shen said.

 

"So, going forward the road we are on will definitely be longer and wider, and the future brighter and brighter."

 

CULT OF PERSONALITY

 

Xi, 64, swiftly consolidated power after taking over as party chief in late 2012, and the move to lift the presidential term limits is not unexpected.

 

In the run up to the vote, critics on Chinese social media attacked the move and drew parallels to North Korea or suggested a Mao-type cult of personality was forming. But the government quickly mounted a propaganda push, blocking some comments and publishing pieces praising the proposal.

 

The party loyalists who attend the annual session of parliament have said the decision is popular with ordinary Chinese people and asserted that China was lucky to have a leader of Xi's calibre.

 

"Protecting the country's long-term stability is an extremely good thing," Cheng Bingqiang from Sichuan province told Reuters shortly ahead of the vote, when asked if he worried about Xi being in office forever.

 

He Guangliang from the southwestern province of Guizhou said it wasn't fair to draw comparisons with North Korea.

 

"China has it's own national characteristics," He said. "There's no one system that suits all countries."

 

However the question was too sensitive for several legislators, who scurried away when asked about Xi being in office forever.

 

"You can't ask me that," said one lady, laughing nervously and declining to give her name.

 

In a further measure of Xi's strength, a key Xi ally, former top graft-buster Wang Qishan, could be elected vice president on Saturday, having stepped down from the Standing Committee in October.

 

He cast his vote right after the seven members of the Standing Committee. The amendment also lifts term limits for the vice presidency.

 

"We've not got around to discussing that yet," Chen Yunying, a senior defector from self-ruled Taiwan who is married to Justin Yifu Lin, the World Bank's former chief economist.

 

"We'll get it in the next few days," she told Reuters, referring to the candidate list for vice president, and adding "everyone has been saying" it will be Wang for the position.

 

CONSOLIDATING POWER

 

Xi began his second five-year term as party chief in October and at the end of the week will be formally appointed by parliament to his second term as president.

 

The government has said lifting the term limits is about protecting the authority of the party with Xi at its centre. The party's official People's Daily has said this does not mean life-long terms.

 

The party gave Xi the title of "core" leader in 2016, a significant strengthening of his position at the time.

 

While the presidency is important, Xi's positions as head of the party and head of the military are considered more important, and these titles are always given first by state media. With the passage of the amendment, now none of the posts have formal term limits.

 

(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Additional reporting by Michael Martina; Editing by Michael Perry, Shri Navaratnam and Mark Potter)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-03-12

[Samui Bodoh]

4 minutes ago, webfact said:

China removed presidential term limits from its constitution on Sunday, giving President Xi Jinping the right to remain in office indefinitely, and confirming his status as the country's most powerful leader since Mao Zedong died more than 40 years ago.

I think this is a dangerous road to go down and that China is forgetting the lessons that it learned so recently; there are many still alive who remember Mao and the reason(s) for term limits.

 

China has been well-served with term-limits for the last forty years; it is hard to argue with all the years of (relative) stability and economic progress. 

 

I truly do not understand the logic of giving more power to a leader in a system where, for all intents and purposes, there isn't any opposition or least any official opposition; when you have few checks and balances, the logical thing to do is increase the number of them, not decrease the number.

 

What kind of China are we going to see in ten years or twenty years after Xi has wielded absolute power for so long? I don't have a clear answer, but I strongly suspect that it won't be pretty.

 

[NCC1701A]

its the same old commie crap from day one in every commie POS country all over the world.

 

no surprises here. you would need to totally blind not to understand what Communist China is.

 

 

[YetAnother]

51 minutes ago, webfact said:

China removed presidential term limits from its constitution on Sunday, giving President Xi Jinping the right to remain in office indefinitely, and confirming his status as the country's most powerful leader since Mao Zedong died

effectively making him King , with the megalomania that is sure to follow

[Raymonddiaz]

Dear leader would have loved it.

[cornishcarlos]

Trump will be gutted... Xi beat him to it :)

 

I think every country should nominate a "leader", then we have a kind of Hunger Games but with all the leaders.

As each one is killed, their country gets taken by the killer... Now wouldn't that be fun !!!

[NanLaew]

27 minutes ago, NCC1701A said:

its the same old commie crap from day one in every commie POS country all over the world.

 

no surprises here. you would need to totally blind not to understand what Communist China is.

 

 

Pithy.

[kotsak]

[boomerangutang]

Big mistake.   Xi is a person. All people are fallible.  Xi could live another 30 years.  If, in his last 25 yrs he devolves to mental illness, he will still be in power and can do all sorts of harm.

 

If, on the other hand, he stays somewhat the same, mentally, then

 

>>>>   Tibet will continue to be militarily occupied (Tibetans are already a minority in Tibet)

 

>>>  Taiwan will continue to have hundreds of missiles pointed at it (can be triggered with the push of a button)

 

>>>   Phil' islands and atolls will continue to be commandeered (along with the inevitable destruction of reefs), and... 

 

>>>   the rich will continue to get mega-richer, while the poor continue to scramble after rice crumbs.

[Anak Nakal]

Dangerous having leader for life!

[Tchooptip]

Communism is a malignant tumour

[ExpatOilWorker]

37 minutes ago, Anak Nakal said:

Dangerous having leader for life!

Also dangerous for Mr. Jingpingpong. The average dictator last 12.5 years, the clock is already ticking.

[Just1Voice]

No good will come of this. 

[marko kok prong]

How long i wonder until he changes the name,Emperor ? No he is supposedly a commie so The great Father or Leader or some such.

[ExpatOilWorker]

The madness have already started. He is consolidating power around himself and the party. 

 

https://www.bloombergquint.com/china/2018/03/13/china-unveils-revolutionary-plan-to-ensure-party-holds-power

 

[tonbridgebrit]

On 3/12/2018 at 1:58 AM, boomerangutang said:

Big mistake.   Xi is a person. All people are fallible.  Xi could live another 30 years.  If, in his last 25 yrs he devolves to mental illness, he will still be in power and can do all sorts of harm.

 

If, on the other hand, he stays somewhat the same, mentally, then

 

>>>>   Tibet will continue to be militarily occupied (Tibetans are already a minority in Tibet)

 

>>>  Taiwan will continue to have hundreds of missiles pointed at it (can be triggered with the push of a button)

 

>>>   Phil' islands and atolls will continue to be commandeered (along with the inevitable destruction of reefs), and... 

 

>>>   the rich will continue to get mega-richer, while the poor continue to scramble after rice crumbs.

Okay, let's look at each point that has been made.



Tibet. Tibet has got no oil, so, why on earth make a big deal about Tibet ? Aborigenes in Australia are also a minority, so why bother raising the issue of a load of Tibetans being a minority in Tibet ?

Taiwan. If a load of Chinese want to fight against another load of Chinese, well, how about let them get on with it ? The important thing is, is that none of our own soldiers get killed preventing one load of Chinese killing another load of Chinese.

Philipinnes. They've had their democratic vote, and they put Duterte in power. Let them choose their own future. If Duterte wants to take the Phils closer to China, well, let him do it. By the way, the Phils are a nation that is more democratic than places like Cambodia and Burma. Phils actually has democratic elections.

And the rich and poor in China ? I don't think we really care. If Mao Zedong comes back, and butchers five million people in Beijing, well, why on earth should our soldiers get involved in trying to stop this ? It's the same in the Middle East. Why should our soldiers risk their lives when one bunch of the locals are fighting against another group of the locals ?



The important thing is this. China is exporting a heap of cheap goods, and we want the cheap goods to continue. No, I'm not in favour of Trump or Europe putting serious taxes on the Chinese imports. Just as important, is to try and get Beijing to open up China's vast domestic market to European and American goods. Yes, China will hopefully create vast profits for Levi Strauss, Nike, Adidas, McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, etc. That's what it's all about.

 

Edited March 13, 2018 by tonbridgebrit

[boomerangutang]

The Tibet issue is close to my heart.

Tibet was taken over militarily.  Tibetans have never had a referendum on whether they want to be occupied.

It would be like the US rolling tanks into Mexico and taking over the country.

[tonbridgebrit]

5 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

The Tibet issue is close to my heart.

Tibet was taken over militarily.  Tibetans have never had a referendum on whether they want to be occupied.

It would be like the US rolling tanks into Mexico and taking over the country.

Hello Boomer. Okay, about Tibet, an interesting issue. I put below a wikipedia link about Tibetan history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Qing_dynasty

 

Okay. Back in the 1200s or 1300s, the Mongols took over China and had the Yuan dynasty. During this time, they also took over Tibet. So, Tibet was in the same Empire, but it did have a level of 'autonomy'.
Later on, the Manchus (Qing dynasty) took over China. During the 1700s, Tibet, under anybody's interpretation, was controlled by the Qing dynasty in China ?? The wikipedia article shows this ?

So, in the 1950s, yes, Chinese tanks rolled in. But they were simply taking what was already their land. Or, what was previously, their land. It's simply a myth when people claim that, "Tibet was a place that had nothing to do with China when China took it in the 1950s".


Now, lets have an un-official rule. If you fought a war and took land, and it was prior to 1899, then you can rightfully claim that the land is yours. But if you took that land during the 1900s, well, that's called 'theft of land'.
Boomer, yes, I'm trying to be a bit funny. 1899, yes, that's how we can make taking over Australia and New Zealand as being okay.
 

Edited March 13, 2018 by tonbridgebrit

[Morch]

On 3/13/2018 at 10:41 AM, tonbridgebrit said:

Okay, let's look at each point that has been made.



Tibet. Tibet has got no oil, so, why on earth make a big deal about Tibet ? Aborigenes in Australia are also a minority, so why bother raising the issue of a load of Tibetans being a minority in Tibet ?

Taiwan. If a load of Chinese want to fight against another load of Chinese, well, how about let them get on with it ? The important thing is, is that none of our own soldiers get killed preventing one load of Chinese killing another load of Chinese.

Philipinnes. They've had their democratic vote, and they put Duterte in power. Let them choose their own future. If Duterte wants to take the Phils closer to China, well, let him do it. By the way, the Phils are a nation that is more democratic than places like Cambodia and Burma. Phils actually has democratic elections.

And the rich and poor in China ? I don't think we really care. If Mao Zedong comes back, and butchers five million people in Beijing, well, why on earth should our soldiers get involved in trying to stop this ? It's the same in the Middle East. Why should our soldiers risk their lives when one bunch of the locals are fighting against another group of the locals ?



The important thing is this. China is exporting a heap of cheap goods, and we want the cheap goods to continue. No, I'm not in favour of Trump or Europe putting serious taxes on the Chinese imports. Just as important, is to try and get Beijing to open up China's vast domestic market to European and American goods. Yes, China will hopefully create vast profits for Levi Strauss, Nike, Adidas, McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, etc. That's what it's all about.

 

 

More of your standard issue propaganda trolling.

 

I'm not going to address all your faux talking points, but there this "If a load of Chinese want to fight against another load of Chinese,  well, how about let them get on with it ?" - according to your view, it would seem that countries may not support other countries, and in fact, should accept China's bullying and get on with the program. Guess the next extension would be a load of Asians fighting a load of Asians, not our business. And so on and so forth. Guess the aim here is to de-legitimize any defense pact with any country which might be targeted by China at some point. And, of course, this does not apply to China itself - China is welcome to create defense pacts with whomever, eh?

 

What you're on about, as usual, is spreading Chinese propaganda highlighting diplomatic and military non-involvement by any other power other than China. That "important" thing you keep pushing, them "cheap goods" - is also China's lifeblood, not solely a Western interest. And, of course, it is the "important" thing, if one ignores a host of others - which you're perfectly ok with in one context, but all too happy to go on about when it comes to bashing the US and the West.

 

 

 

[wabothai]

All the world needs at this point is another dictator. Too many of them around already.