- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1223 Hour
- Reading permission
This post was edited by abramicus at 2012-10-18 19:33|
ktbond Post time: 2012-10-18 11:49
However the Chinese people are not under direct attack and have no need to defend thems ...
Evidence of corruption takes years after the fact to discover, let alone to prove, and using rules of evidence as rules of action will always allow corruption to do its damage first, and whether or not it can be discovered, and then remedied can be even less certain than the certitude of its harm. However, you are right that at present, one can only be vigilant against corruption, rather than condemnatory of any official. Indeed, being certain of who is corrupt is less important than being aware it exists in some form or another. One can be only 1% sure of any one person being corrupt, but one can be 99% sure that someone is. And this latter assumption is all we need to take precautions against policies being promulgated that can harm the country, without having proof that its promoter is necessarily corrupt. Indeed, he may not be corrupt at all, but simply misled by someone else who is.
China's history places a high probabiity on the event that someone in power can be corrupted by the Japanese, while China's current news reports may be totally inadequate to assign such suspicion to any one individual. The net result is still the same. The country can be sold down the river by one such individual working in the midst of many others who are 100% patriotic.
Thus, the best way to view policy is not to assume that the author is either corrupt without proof, or innocent until proven otherwise, but to ask ourselves, is this policy beneficial or harmful to the country? If it is beneficial, there is no need to question the integrity of its sponsor, even though he might be sponsoring a good policy in order to mask his own dishonesty in other dealings. On the other hand, if the policy is likely to be detrimental to the country, it should be opposed regardless of how honest looking its sponsor may appear to be.
It is in this light that the enlightened people should act as the guardian, not just the beneficiary, of government policy. There is no need to PROVE that the author of any policy is corrupt for the people to reject his policy, if it is already defective and potentially harmful to the country. In dealing with Japan, adopting policies that surrender the national sovereignty, as in agreeing to Japan's continued jurisdiction of Diaoyudao, require no proof of corruption for the people to justify their opposing it. And indeed, absence of proof of corruption is not a valid reason to approve of such policies It just so happens that in China's history, one common reason for such policies being promoted, in fact, as documented in the last days of the Manchu regime, was corruption. The people would have done well to oppose such policies on the merits or demerits of such policies, without having to prove the innocence or corruption of the officials sponsoring them, which is nearly impossible in real time.