Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Law_managing a nation, by human or by law?

I am thinking this question for days. China has been a nation with thousands of years governed by human. Now the President Hu said the country should be regulated by law. Is that possible for such a big nation with a so large population?

Read a pretty interesting message yesterday. Shenzhen Development Bank, the only foreign-controlled joint-stock lender in China, said it has received notice from China Securties Regulatory Commission, asking for the return of a back-up loan. The loan once belonged to a already two bankrupted securties companies .

The message said: The regulator asked us twice to pay back the money, with the warning to send us to the court. But we haven't done that yet coz our lawyer doesn't think we have to pay. So far, no suit.

5 comments:

Mikke said...

I think it might be the other way around. The bigger and more complex a country is, the more important to have strict law that governs how business can be conducted, and what rules apply. And that law must be stable and can only have very minor changes during foreseeable future. This will allow for companies and indivuduals to invest and plan for the future, without risk of things changing, or individuals intepreting the rules differently.

Amy or koala said...

That's right, but there was once a period in China's history where officials decide everything by their wisdom, not by the regulations. And the period is also peaceful,,,

EX Libre said...

this thinking is what i find so interesting about Chinese.

They insist on wholeness with the past. But the past is over, and I believe that even if China was peaceful, law makes the rest of the world more peaceful. We live in a world where China's footsteps are like the butterfly that flaps its wings and causes a change in the air pressure over Mexico.

We all in this world have to obey some human law.

I think it's also very interesting how when you refer to China operating by human rather than law, you consider it a good thing. Or at least, that's what your tone implies.

But let's not forget that many journalists and educators in China are arrested by human rule, just so that the communist party can make a point. The one party rule must end.

It abuses people.

Amy or koala said...

Hi,ex_libre, you may misunderstand my words. I am not saying ruling by human will be a better thing. I am just questioning why the system works at that time. Does it mean ruling by human and ruling by law both have their advantages and may work from time to time?

P.S. For the journalists and educators in China arrested in China, I think those are wrong doings. But that's not exclusive for China. FBI in United States also did the same thing, as I read online. So that's a general problem, not just caused by the one party rule.

I am not arguing for one-party rule. But as I learn from the history, people protest and end the rule of some government just because they couldn't live. But see today's China, most people still could live happily, right? So something must is not a good word using here. I prefer "if something is necessary"

Argleblaster said...

I think you'll find (if you research a bit) that the common perception of a "golden age" in the past is just that - a perception. Almost without exception, those "peaceful times gone by" are the product of pure nostalgia, with no evidence to back them up. Every generation without fail has raised this idea. I suspect life as a farmer 200 years ago was considerably more harsh and less peaceful than today.