China’s tantrums and a justice system in question

To understand China’s due process of law requires knowledge of appointments to the judiciary.

Prequalification for the judiciary requires mandatory membership of the Chinese Communist Party, and that requires absolute obedience and loyalty, whereby duty is first, and foremost to the interest of the CCP, and then China as a whole. Everything else has a lesser priority.

There are severe penalties for breach of loyalty to the CCP that can seriously affect the future prospects and lifestyle of both individual and family, be they judge, prosecutor, defence lawyer, defendant or witness.

For the judiciary, this raises the obvious question when determining the admissibility of evidence that may prove contrary to the interest of the CCP and the state. If a judge were to rule in favour of a defendant, it would negate the state’s allegations, cause official embarrassment and loss of face. This would be in direct conflict with the judge’s duty and loyalty to the CCP. The common practice by the judiciary “where the interest of the state is perceived as being at stake,” is to refuse to hear such actions. There is extensive evidence of this practice across China, and not only in the ethnic areas.

Given this allegiance and implied “duty and loyalty” to the CCP by those judging, prosecuting, defending, or even giving evidence, justice is sacrificed in preference to breaching loyalty by failing to protect the interests of the CCP and the state.

Not all in China’s legal fraternity comply with the demands of the CCP. There are a number of highly professional defence lawyers dedicated to defending those subjected to official abuse. Despite overwhelming evidence, the courts reject the cases and many of these lawyers are beaten, jailed and prevented from practice because of their professional ethics and reliance on due process of the law in China.

Credibility of evidence of executuves of state-owned enterprises

Like the judiciary, membership of the CCP is mandatory for those aspiring to secure or currently hold executive positions in state-owned enterprises, and creates a similar conflict of interest with dire consequences. To give evidence against the state is in breach of their sworn loyalty to the CCP and will jeopardise the future prospects and lifestyle of the individual and family.

There is a clear and definitive conflict of interest when seeking justice from China’s justice system. Sworn loyalty and commitment to the interests of the CCP is used as a clear form of duress that is imposed on all members of the CCP not to answer a question truthfully if it questions the credibility of the state’s allegations.

China’s trouble-shooter, Vice Foreign Minister, Liu Jieyu visited Canberra and spoke to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, defending the arrest of Stern Hu and urging Canberra not to interfere in the case, claiming comparisons of criminal activities within the two countries.

The guiding role of China’s judicial system and commitment to the ideals, interests and policies of Chinese Communist Party can only raise serious question about the veracity of the claims of Vice Foreign Minister Liu Jieyu when comforting Mr Rudd and the Australian government with his statement that:

“Stern Hu and his co-workers would receive a fair trial.”

Mr Rudd has been outspoken of his extensive experience in China and knowledge of the system, and one would therefore expect him to have a sound and thorough working knowledge of China’s legal system.