Barbadian Online Journalist asks Chinese Economist tough question per Human Rights

Cheng Siwei addressed the Central Bank recently – I asked if China is to spend more and have an Open Economy with Transparency, what will China do about its Human Rights record and will it allow the Internet to be free, rather than people told where to go – given that e-Commerce is a sign of an Open Economy…

CHENG SIWEI: Ex-Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

Dr DeLisle Worrell {LEFT} assists the former NPC Vice Chair in handling questions from the audience

The economist – who’s appeared on HARDtalk – was not very pleased… Essentially he responded that his Government must look after the needs of 1.4 billion and what the Western European and USA consider as necessities for Human Rights may not be the same priorities for Beijing. What is also of note, is how I made sure to include the Governor’s rapid defence of the Professor’s homeland’s administrative policies?

One Response

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Hi Ian,

    I trust you will be equally bold next time you have the chance to question a prominent American of similar rank and stature.

    Maybe you could ask how is it the US politicians loudly proclaim their love and support for “freedom” and “democracy” to the extent they will bomb countries on the other side of the world so that that they too, (after US bombs and poisonous depleted uranium weaponry have mostly destroyed them) can enjoy the benefits freedom and democracy will bring and yet those same self-proclaimed lovers of freedom, democracy and the American way turn a blind eye and the US media remains mostly mute (outside of “fringe” internet blogs) about the quickening pace at which the USA itself is turning into a totalitarian dictatorship/police state.

    See this item: The Collapse of American Democracy

    by Barry Grey

    One week ago, US Attorney General Eric Holder delivered a speech asserting the right of the president to secretly order the assassination of American citizens. Citing the so-called “war on terror,” he claimed that this never-before-asserted authority was lawful under the president’s war-making powers and was not subject to judicial review.

    Holder stressed that the president’s power to order extra-judicial killings was part of a range of powers including the abduction of suspected terrorists and their indefinite internment, without trial, either in civilian or military prisons. Having noted that terrorists “reside within our own borders,” he insisted that the government’s authority to use lethal force was “not limited to the battlefields of Afghanistan.”

    In an attempt to give a constitutional gloss to this assertion of police-state powers, Holder made the astonishing assertion that “due process and judicial process are not one and the same… The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

    See also:

    The Criminalization of Protest: Say Goodbye To Free Speech in America

    A new bill, HR 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, also known as the “Trespassing Bill,” is soon to be signed into law by President Obama. This bill effectively criminalizes protest and will hurt protest groups and movements such as Occupy quite hard.

    The bill as states that anyone who knowingly “enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so” with the “intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in or [in] proximity to, any restricted building or grounds” or “impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions” will be punished with a fine or “or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both.” (emphasis added)

    There are already many problems with the bill as it does not attempt to define what “imped[ing] or disrupt[ing] the orderly conduct of government business or official functions” is, nor does it specify what “government business” is or what an “official function” is. This vagueness will allow for the US government to effectively stifle protest and free speech, thus criminalizing such actions like the upcoming Occupy Chicago anti-NATO/G-8 protests. In addition to this, such a law will make it impossible for Americans to exercise their First Amendment rights when “government business” is being attended to or “official functions” are occurring.


    The fact that only three people in the House, all Republicans oppose the bill and absolutely no Democrats (see the voting list here), only shows just how both parties are just two sides of the same coin.

    This law comes at the heels of the US government having debated over whether or not to indefinitely detain US citizens and Attorney General Eric Holder- the Obama administration’s version of John Yoo, arguing that the President can assassinate US citizens without providing any evidence whatsoever to anyone.

    Free speech may very well soon be nothing but a distant relic of the past.


add a comment

Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.