Malignant unrestrained power | Lee Yee
The Hong Kong police issued a statement the night before yesterday quoting the Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department’s response to the arrest of the 12 Hongkongers. The short communication was full of loopholes. If these 12 people are still under investigation, how can the authorities be sure that they will be approved by the procuratorate for arrest later? One of the 12 people was the skipper, is he a member of the smuggling organization? If he is indeed part of a smuggling group, why was he escaping to Taiwan? Why was there no mention of the arrest of the skipper? What happened to the speedboat? Did the 12 people buy the boat hence it was confiscated?
It has been more than a month and they still could not spin a better story. The power has become so domineering to the point where they say what they want without regard for whether it is believable or not anymore.
Chinese state media reported that, at the recent Third Central Symposium on Xinjiang Work held in Beijing, Xi Jinping emphasized the need to “uphold efforts to sinicize religion, sinicize Islam and forge the collective consciousness of a common Chinese identity.” Following Xi’s “sinicization of Tibetan Buddhism,” this is another one of his latest sinicization campaigns with requirements explicitly put forward.
Both Tibetan Buddhism and Xinjiang Islam are religions based on beliefs in God or divine inspirations, while in other parts of China, most religious believers just pray to gods and buddhas for blessings. Very few people truly believe in gods, reincarnation, or life after death. If “One China” means China under the dictatorship of the atheist Communist Party, then the “sinicization of religion” denotes a false and bogus religion. A leader who can come up with the idea of sinicization of religion under atheism is enough to show that there is nothing believable about this regime, including the woven tale for the 12 arrested Hongkongers.
In the era of ancient China’s absolute monarchy, although there was no real religious belief, ancient Chinese emperors at least paid respect to ancestors and held ceremonies to worship heaven. Dictatorship began from as early as the Qin dynasty to the Han Dynasty during which Dong Zhongshu proposed the rule to respect the emperor. However, he also proposed to restrict the emperor and respect heaven; the emperor would be called the son of heaven, meaning the heavenly father was watching over. The occurrence of a catastrophic natural disaster would be the wrath of heaven; the emperor would often issue a rescript for penitence, and reflect and review to improve governance.
The atheistic CCP not only does not believe in gods but also disbelieves in heaven. Mao Zedong claimed to be a “monk holding an umbrella,” meaning that he was above the law and above heaven. He also said, “Battling with heaven is endless joy.” Therefore, under the guidance of the idea of “Humans will triumph over the sky,” the Great Leap Forward brought about a situation of “endless suffering” for the Chinese people.
However, the CCP regime before Mao the second at least would not, on the one hand, claim to believe in Marxism-Leninism, and on the other hand, bludgeon itself with such absurd theories as the “sinicization of religion.” Perhaps Mao 2.0 now possesses absolute power such that no one dares to tell the truth, resulting in comments of all illogical nonsense.
Recently, the Chinese education department was so preposterous that it blatantly falsified the Bible. The story of Jesus and the Adulteress from the New Testament was cited in textbooks but the ending of the story was distorted. In the original passage of the Bible, Jesus said to the adulteress, “I, too, do not condemn you; Go and sin no more!” The Chinese textbook, however, presents the story as: “When the crowd disappeared, Jesus stoned the sinner to death saying, ‘I too am a sinner. But if the law could only be executed by men without blemish, the law would be dead.’” Forcing words to justify the Chinese leaders into the mouth of Jesus.
Of course, anyone who enforces the law in any society will not be a flawless person, but in a normal society, at least the law enforcers know that they are either guilty, or that regardless of religion or even non-religion, they believe that “there is a deity watching over them.” In addition to believing that “a deity is watching,” law enforcers are also restrictive in their power by the separation of powers with mutual checks and balances, as well as the supervision of the Fourth Estate. Nearly 300 years ago, the French Enlightenment thinker Montesquieu said, “Every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go. Power is naturally expansive and has a tendency to turn malignant. As long as there are insufficient restraint and supervision, any power will give rise to corruption. To prevent this abuse, it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power.”
The power we face and its extension in Hong Kong may be the most extreme power in human history. It has no restraints nor any checks and balances, and without the constraints of “heaven” from the dark ages of ancient China and the Western Middle Ages. Its “expansion and malignancy” can exceed all human imagination. Therefore, normal people can only completely and absolutely distrust this absolute power.
「montesquieu separation of powers」的推薦目錄:
montesquieu separation of powers 在 福佳與林忌創作 Facebook 的最讚貼文
林忌:楊潤雄等港共官員,最愛借此搬弄,再隨意創作的地方──英治時期的香港,尊重分權、自由、人權、法治,甚至在沒有民主的情況下,也盡量滿足民主與民意;反之在港共之下,就只會不斷搬龍門──當市民司法覆核政府的政策,法院根據英國案例,就會聲稱香港奉行「三權分立」,因此司法機關不會干預立法會內的運作,原則上也不會干預行政部門的政策;但政府卻帶頭說自己從來沒有「三權分立」;簡單而言,就是一時說有,一時說無;對自己有利時說有,對自己無利時說無;於是「三權分立」就好似量子力學薛丁格的貓一般,既同時存在又同時不存在,方便政府隨時輸打贏要。
所謂三權分立,其起源就是歐洲的法學家與哲學家,在歐洲的啟蒙時代,提出要政府各個部門之間,權力互相制衡、監督,以防權力集中一端,而導致腐敗的哲學思想;這種思想先由英國哲學家洛克(John Locke)提出,再由法國的法學、哲學家孟德斯鳩(Baron de Montesquieu),集大成寫成《論法之精神》(De l'esprit des lois)(英譯:The Spirit of the Laws)。然而由於各國政制不同,特別是英國的權力制衡比較複雜,屬於「不完全」的分立,所以英文長期是使用「分權」(Separation of powers),而不著重「三權」;反之中文則譯自拉丁文(Trias politica)與法文(Séparation des trois pouvoirs),就把焦點放在三權之處。
然而無論用甚麼名稱,其重點並不在於三權之間有沒有「合作」,或者是不是純粹的「分立」,而是在於大家明白要「分權」,要互相監督,而不能容許獨裁專政的簡單道理。這道理聽起來好像常識,好像很簡單,可是如此簡單的事情,在獨裁專政的地方,仍然無法實行,甚至被全盤否定。至於君主立憲的英國政制,本身在「分權」的歷史上,來得比較複雜──在這十年改制之前,最高法官來自上議院,因此理論上立法與司法重疊;首相只是代女皇行使行政權力,而且仍有很多理論上存在的皇室特權;然而真相是英國政制執行時,上議院早已架空,而不是真正作出立法決定的下議院;女皇在君主立憲下,表面上有權,實際上絕大部份都不會行使;在英治時期香港的政制下,港督代英皇行使權力,理論上擁有無限權力,實際上卻尊重分權;因此名義上英國沒有嚴格「三權分立」,卻在行使有意義的分權;正如原文的書名,其重點在於「分權的精神」,在於實際上達到「分權」,而非名義上三權甚麼的。因此教科書上應該寫清楚,香港當然沒有三權分立,只有中共一黨專政。「黨最大」三個字,就可以教識所有學生,其他甚麼都是假的。只有一國,沒有兩制,無論是指鹿為馬,或者殺人放火,甚麼民主、自由、人權、法治,都是假的。黨即法律,黨即一切,爹親娘親不及習總親,這就是「中國香港」的「真理」啊!(節錄,全文按連結)
montesquieu separation of powers 在 利世民 Facebook 的最佳貼文
Despotism is all around us: the warnings of Montesquieu – Vickie B Sullivan | Aeon Ideas | Aeon | 2018 01 17
//It is commonplace for citizens of liberal, democratic nations to believe that despotism is foreign to their own experiences. Their political constitutions display in some form or other a separation of powers, which is specifically intended to prev...//
montesquieu separation of powers 在 Montesquieu's theory of separation of powers - YouTube 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>