Reflections of a Radio Talk Show Host (of AM1300 KAZN) -- Part VI

This is the sixth part of the memoir of my four-year tour of duty as a radio talk show host for AM1300 (KAZN).

From the time of Mao Zedong’s death, China went through a period of liberalization under Mao’s appointed successor Hua Guofeng, who loosened the speech control somewhat. There was, at that time, a public outcry, permitted by Hua, to get Deng, who was purged by Mao, to work again. The movement was led by the young people, Wei Jingsheng, who would soon be arrested by Deng.

The Hua-Deng liberalization, which is known in China as “reform and open,” was largely releasing the power to the provinces, by allowing the provinces to collect the taxes and spend much of it. The reform lasted till 1989, when Deng called in tanks and troops to suppress the student movement in Tiananmen Square and Zhao Ziyang, his hand-picked manager. From that time on, the security of the Communist rule, rather than the economic liberalization, becomes Deng’s number one issue.

In 1993, Zhu Rongji, then the Premier, worked to take back the power of taxation to the central government. The new tax law was implemented in 1994, when the power moved from the provinces to Beijing. Since that point on, the so-called state-owned enterprises (SOEs) begin to dominate the Chinese economy because it has the government power at its disposal.

At one point, the state run oil companies were not interested in gas stations. However, when they changed their mind later on, they simply have the government issue an order to ask all private gas stations in profitable locations to close their doors.

In a short period, with the government power, in the supply chains of almost all products in China, there would be SOEs that use their monopoly power to set the prices. Therefore, these SOEs are highly profitable. With the SOEs, a stratum of the population becomes rich.

With the 1989 massacre of students by Deng and the subsequent re-centralization by Zhu, the liberalization of the early period of the reform disappeared. Most significantly, the free speech in colleges was no longer allowed.

As children were forced to recite Party nonsense from kindergarten, they developed an underground language, which was represented in Guo Jingming’s novels, and mainly consist a lifestyle full of foreign luxury brand with vain talking, known by the title of one of Guo’s novel Small Epoch (translated in China as Tiny Times). Therefore, for today Chinese youth, who grow up since 1989, their minds are full of the Party doctrines and the vain Small Epoch thinking.

The damage to the children by forcing them into this double thinking is tremendous. One has to have personal relation with some of the Chinese youth to truly feel the impact. Although it is quite possible to see this in those who came to the U.S., the true impact could only be felt inside China.

As monopoly goes, this type of mind-control only steps up, with each generation of the Beijing regime. As the brainwashing was strengthened since 2012 by the present ruler, so have self-contradictions. To prop up the Party’s image, the Chinese newspapers reach out to report stories such as married couples spend their wedding night coping the Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party, absolutely ridiculous things are reported in China with a straight face. Any publications that are not tightly under the control of the Party’s apparatus, such as 炎黄春秋, or Sprint and Falls of China, which is a magazine run by retired Party officials to record the past, was forced to close by the present regime. As monopolies go, the situation is quick worsening. When asked whether there is a way out, Zhu Rongji simply said: No.

A recent story probably shows the degree of the problem. In a joint news conference with the Chinese foreign minister on June 2, 2016, in Ottawa, the Canadian reporter asked Stéphane Dion, the Canadian foreign minister, a question: “There are no shortage of concerns about China's treatment of human rights advocates, such as the Hong Kong booksellers and its detention of the Garratts, not to mention the destabilizing effects of its territorial ambitions in the South China Sea. Given these concerns, why is Canada pursuing closer ties with China, how do you plan to use that relationship to improve human rights and security in the region, and did you specifically raise the case of the Garratts during your discussions with the foreign minister today?”

The mentioned “Hong Kong booksellers” were kidnapped by the Chinese authority from Hong Kong to the mainland China. The “detention of the Garratts” is about a Canadian couple, Kevin and Julia Dawn Garratt, who were detained in China in 2014 on espionage Charges of stealing state secrets while they lived near the China’s border with North Korea.

Hearing the question, Wang Yi jumped in, uninvited. Here is his comment: “I want to make a response to the questions that the journalist has just raised concerning China. Your question was full of prejudice against China and an arrogance that comes from I don't know where. This is totally unacceptable to me. Do you understand China? Have you been to China? Do you know that China has come from a poor and backward state and lifted more than 600 million people from poverty? Do you know that China is now the world's second biggest economy with $8,000 per capita? If we weren't able to properly protect human rights, would China have achieved such great development? Do you know that China has incorporated protecting human rights into its Constitution? I want to tell you that it's the Chinese people who most understand China's human rights record — not you, but the Chinese people themselves. You have no right to speak on this. The Chinese people have the right to speak. So please don't raise such irresponsible questions again. China welcomes all well-meaning suggestions, but we reject all groundless accusations.”

That exchange was widely reported in China. As soon as the exchange was published, a parody appeared in the Chinese social media:

Neighbor: I heard that you beat up your wife and kids at home.

Mr. Wang: In the past, the don't even have enough food to eat.

Neighbor: I asked you whether you beat up your wife and kids.

Mr. Wang: Our family is the second richest family in the village.

Neighbor: I did not ask you that. I just asked you whether you beat up your wife and kids.

Mr. Wang: You other neighbor Mr. Liu beat up his wife and kids. Why did you do nothing about that?

Neighbor: I asked you whether you beat up your wife and kids.

Mr. Wang: In your history, have you never beat up your wife and kids?

Neighbor: I asked you whether you beat up your wife and kids.

Mr. Wang: We have included anti-violence clauses in our family rule book.

Neighbor: I only asked you whether you beat up your wife and kids.

Mr. Wang: Your question was full of prejudice against my family and an arrogance that comes from I don't know where.

Neighbor: I only asked you whether you beat up your wife and kids.

Mr. Wang: Please don't raise such irresponsible questions again. We welcome all well-meaning suggestions, but we reject all malicious questions.

Neighbor: I only asked you whether you beat up your wife and kids.

Mr. Wang: I want to tell you that it's my wife and kids who most understand my family — not you. You have no right to speak on this. Only my family members have the right to speak. My wife and kids love me to do what I do. You get out.

Today's Chinese social media are full of jokes such as this one. It has become a part of the Chinese social media culture. The Communist Party regularly delete, from its Internet control center, any and all comments that it feels offensive. For instance, if you negatively comment on a speech given by Xi Jinping, the Communist Party General Secretary, the comment will be immediately deleted and you visited by the police. However, jokes, including parodies, are still an exception, at least when it is not aimed at the top leader.

Needless to say, China today is a frustrated mess. On one side, it is the indoctrination (patriotism). On the other side, it is the foreign brand and jokes. So, the college students would go the streets protesting the U.S. imperialism in the day time, and prepare TOEFL (the language examination as a part of the requirement of American universities).

The split mentality is everywhere. So much so that the people do not think about it any more. Contradictions are simply their every day life.

Then, there is the Stockholm syndrome, which is a psychological phenomenon that when the person is in the captured situation, they would side with their capture’s interests, not their own interests. As the Chinese people live in a captured state (brainwashing, speech control, etc.), many of them have the Stockholm syndrome. Even when their rights were infringed, they come out to demonstrate, first by stating that they support the Communist Party, then they want to help the Party to become a better Party. In the meantime, the Party hires more and more police, from the Internet Police to SWAT teams, with the world’s latest weapons to put more pressure on the people, so they would be clear of their captured status.

Those mental problems could be felt by anyone who have been to tourist spots lately and stayed close to the Chinese tourists. One has to understand that reason is something that they have been trying to avoid for all their lives.

When the Chinese people move to the U.S., they certainly bring to the U.S. all their problems. Interestingly, much of the problem is not particular to the Chinese here. Those from Taiwan has the very similar problems. They, just like those from China, take the abuse in stride, by convincing themselves that they have to take the unreasonable treatment of the management.

From a pure labor perspective, being a radio talk show host should require many more years of education than, say, working for fast food chains, so they should not be paid less than those working in fast food chains. (The radio talk show hosts are paid the rock bottom rate, i.e., the minimum salary for the hours that the spend before the microphones, but, unlike those working in fast food chains, they need to prepare for they are going to say. In addition, if you work at the fast food restaurants, you might even get a few cents or even a dollar or two above the rock bottom minimum wage, due to competition.)

The interesting fact is that the fast food employees demonstrate for higher wages, forcing the fast food restaurants to adopt more and more technologies to reduce the number of employees needed to run the operation. If the radio talk show hosts get together and demand higher salaries, say equal income treatment from the fast food chains, the station could not adopt technologies to replace them.

It is their collected belief (that they convinced themselves that they only worth de facto less than minimum wage treatments) that did them in. Of course, this collected belief is partially responsible for the cheap products in Chinese stores.

But, although the employees, collectively and individually, do not want do anything, they want their government to come in to help them out. In the meantime, they are trained in China not to think about the consequence of an all powerful government. For those who come from China (voting for Obama’s second term 80% to 20%), they certainly don’t want to think why they come to the U.S. in the first place.

On one hand, there are many capable people working in the Chinese community, because much money could be made. (Certainly, I am not saying that all Chinese employers use the KAZN’s business model, as I know many employers treating their employees fairly, but KAZN is certainly not the only one using that model, as I have heard lawyers in the Chinese community hiring law school graduates to work for them for free in exchange of being able to put the experience on the resume and get favorable references, among other stories. One story might be worth mentioning here is that the Chinese people, with all the abovementioned problems, lack trust. So many lawyers offer outcome guarantees. Their way to carry out the money-return guarantee, which, in fact, is entirely different from guaranteeing the outcome, is to hire cheap assistants, so they can afford to return some of the fees paid to them.)

On the other hand, those who do not want to mess with the Chinese employers would find jobs in the “main stream” companies.

Then, those who could not manage a job offer in the “main stream” companies are forced to stay and take whatever that is handed to them. These are the people who lack abilities, partially due to their inability to exit the Chinese mentality after moving to the U.S.

The Stockholm syndrome is extremely acute in the radio station as the employees call the station manager who fired me “sister,” who signs her name “Mom” when leaving messages to the employees.

Also, there is a saying in the station that, despite its low pay, etc., the station does not fire anyone. At the same time, many in the station told me that, for some reason, capable people could not stay in the station for long.

In any case, when I was fired, for whatever it is worth, I forwarded the email (originated from the manager to the program director) to everyone. I thought that I should put that nonsense to rest. So, they may think about all those people in the past. Did they leave, or were they fired?

Stockholm syndrome

In other words, there is a concentration of Chinese-minded people.

AM 1300 radio station is an example of this phenomenon.

(... to be continued)

First published on July 27, 2016

Contact information:

Facebook：http://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng

Blog: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/

Past AM1300 (KAZN) programs in Chinese: http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng

For law firm business (business, patent, trademark, and business-based immigration), please write to info@pujielaw.com or call 626-279-7200.

Reflections of a Radio Talk Show Host (of AM1300 KAZN) -- Part V

This is part five of the memoir of my four-year tour of duty as a radio talk show host for AM1300 (KAZN).

For someone like me, who had never worked (i.e., made money) in a pure Chinese language environment prior to working for AM 1300, four years of KAZN forced some hard realities of the Chinese people into me, or, to be more precise and to put it mildly, the Chinese mentality. For me, after staying in the U.S. for 30 years, I was so far away from the Chinese culture that I was no longer able to imagine what kind of mental state that many Chinese people live under.

Working in the Chinese language station gave me a window to take a peek into that mental state, as the people working in the station and the audience were primarily those whose English was not good enough for them to enjoy the American culture via English language.

For readers who are not totally familiar with the Chinese culture, I must start the story with the state of the mind of those in China.

In China, all children from preschool years till the time of college graduation (as, in recent years, colleges no longer tolerate speech that is outside the strict lines drawn by the Communist Party, and have been using paid student spies and a heavy hand to make sure that professors and students do not make offensive statement to the Party, such as democracy, free speech, or property rights; in the 1980s, after K-12, which was pure brainwashing, certain degree of freedom was allowed in the colleges) are forced to recite an entire line of Party-fabricated Marxism (for instance, proletariat, which means wage earners according to Marx, are re-interpreted in China as what Marx called “lumpenproletariat,” which means outcasts, such as beggars, tricksters, and criminals), Leninism (for instance, Lenin’s book, when published in China, went through heavy editing to take out what the Chinese Communist Party did not like), and history (including both the world history and Chinese history, which are completely reinvented). For instance, during the Japanese invasion of China, Mao Zedong had a secret pact with the Japanese invaders so the Japanese could focus on the Nationalist’s troops, and allowed Mao to develop its own forces. In history books, the Communist Party becomes the one resisting the Japanese invasion, while the nationalists retreated into the mountains in the southwest. The tens of millions of people who were killed by Mao between 1949 and 1976 (all in peace time) were omitted in the Chinese history, while a Japanese massacre in Nanjing (1937) were exaggerated (to the impossible figure of 200,000) and hammered into the mind of the Chinese children. All evils of the Chinese are the faults of the foreigners lead by no other than the U.S., and supported by its running dogs like the Japanese. The Chinese Communist Party, which in fact has caused the evils, are always correct.

When I grew up, as the Party, lead by Hua Guofeng (chairman of the CCP from 1976 – 1981), started the economic revival, thought-control was loosened up. Even after Deng Xiaoping squeezed Hua Guofeng out of power, he tightened down speech quite a bit but still allowed limited freedom of speech, under his hand-picked manager Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang. For instance, in colleges, one of my classmate argued that China would be much better off if Japan had not attached the U.S., so it could occupy the entire China and do to China what it did in Taiwan and Manchuria. Certainly, what Japan did positively to Taiwan and Manchuria was not taught in schools.

I came to understand modern Japan and the Japanese people when I worked for Fujifilm, a Japanese company, for more than five years. Also, I traveled to Japan quite a few times. So, after visiting Japan, I would comment on my radio program about my impression of Japan. Many listeners people angrily called in. To them, any benign comment on Japan was unforgivable. Interestingly, much of this view was held not only by those who come from China, but also those from Taiwan. In fact, much of the mental state in China also exist in Taiwan, although the new generation, which grows up during the 25 years of democratic rule in Taiwan, is erasing that similarity.

One has to see such patriotic propaganda to believe its power. It is such propaganda that made the German people launching the WWII, and Japanese people attacking the Pearl Harbor, both unspeakably stupid undertakings. However, under the government monopoly and people’s patriotic fervor, the political leaders are almost compelled into suicidal endeavors. Today, China is expanding in all directions except Russia, as China believes that the shrinking Russian white population in the Asian part and the Chinese emigration into that part of Russia will take care of that problem in a few generations.

With that kind of patriotic propaganda, the Chinese people are indoctrinated to the hilt. The Chinese people believe that they are a historically great people, while they have been bullied by the foreign powers lead by the U.S. The Chinese territories, which used to cover Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines, are taken away and should be reclaimed. However, the Chinese government notably ignored its treaties with Russia to formally secede more than 100 million square kilometers of disputed territories to Russia.

The Chinese people are uniquely great, with uniquely great characteristics, so the foreign beliefs, such as freedom, democracy, human rights, private property rights, and rule of law do not fit the Chinese uniquely great culture. At the same time, China is in fact a free, democratic country with better human rights and rule of law record than the foreigners. For example, the white Americans have fragrantly violated the human rights of the native Americans.

All criticism from abroad are vicious and designed to destroy China. (Of course, those living within the borders of China must support such a greatest party under the sun whole heartedly. Any dissent must be from the demented people, as the Chinese authority has increasing been sending these people to psychiatric wards. Certainly, that is not the main method of dealing with dissent. For the run of the mill critics, the Party would put them in jail on corruption, or tax evasion, charges.) To muffle criticism from abroad, the Chinese government forbid those critical of China from visiting China and only allow those who kowtow to its policies to enter China and “study” China. In time, countries like the U.S. would have a group of “Chinese experts” that are used to recite the Party lines.

China is a strong country, second only to the U.S. (in total GDP, whatever that means). It has a people with confidence in its ways of doing things, in its guiding theories, in its system (stated by Hu Jintao in 2012), and in its culture (added by Xi Jinping in 2014). So, when the international tribunal in the Hague ruled that the Chinese expansion to the Philippine waters were baseless, Li Keqiang, the Chinese Prime Minister, paid the Cambodia $600 million (USD) to have the Cambodia Prime Minister agree with its position in the South China Sea, as the Chinese media reported that 90 countries agreed with the Chinese government’s position. Two days later, Hun Sen, the Cambodia Prime minister, stated that he was on the side of Japan in the East China Sea dispute between Japan and China. (He was talking about the Senkaku Islands, or the Diaoyu Islands as they are known in China.)

Such a confident country has put all of its vice Chairmen in the military commission (highest ranking military men) of the last term in jail. It is increasingly blocking the Internet access of its people. It pays large number of Internet trolls to manufacture public voice over the Internet. If anyone has doubt about the power of such people, who were known in China as 50-cents (about 8 cents USD), which is the amount the government pays these people for putting up each post, he (or she) could visit my program recordings and read their offensive comments. The Chinese government has squeezed Google out of China because Google refused to work with the Chinese government in blocking the unwelcome voices.

China is a weak country, so environmental pollution is a worthwhile sacrifice to put food on everyone's table. Rampant food quality problems are also a price worth paying to put food on everyone’s table.

Chinese is a strong and rich country, so it could spend hundreds of billions (USD) to implement its new silk road, which basically pays to build transportation infrastructure in certain countries in exchange for their diplomatic support of China. These countries know that the loans are really grants. And China knows that, when the money stops, so would be the singing.

Chinese people is a weak people, so the government could not afford to pay for people's medical care or education, as the Chinese spendings in both the medical care and education ranked as share of GDP are at the bottom of the world.

The funniest of all, the Chinese is a great people with its cultural confidence and refuse all the western ideologies, such as democracy, free speech, the rule of law, and the private property rights. However, in the Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party, the first fundamental guiding theory for the CCP is Marxism (a western theory that promotes the elimination of exploitation, according to the Chinese interpretation, which is another convoluted mess that I am not going to delve into) and Leninism (another western theory that primarily consists the politburo-led governing system). Of course, there has to be some Chinese elements, so Mao's thoughts (e.g., killing three hundred million Chinese people is no big deal – as he said in Moscow on November 18, 1955) lead the way.

(... to be continued)

First published on July 20, 2016

Contact information:
Facebook：http://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng
Blog: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/
Past AM1300 (KAZN) programs in Chinese: http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng


For law firm business (business, patent, trademark, and business-based immigration), please write to info@pujielaw.com or call 626-279-7200.

Reflections of a Radio Talk Show Host (of AM1300 KAZN) -- Part IV

This is part four of the memoir of my four-year tour of duty as a radio talk show host for AM1300 (KAZN).

Throughout my years of hosting the program, I had invited many Republican and Democratic politicians to the program. Nobody cared to come. For Republicans, they probably didn't see the point of trying to work in the Chinese area. For Democrats, they already had 80% of the votes, without much effort. If they messed with the situation, the only likelihood was for them to lose votes, so they didn't want to get their feet wet.

One day in late April, I came across a campaign sign of Jack Orswell, the Republican nominee for House, against the incumbent Judy Chu. I made a contact for an interview. To my surprise, Jack accepted, but he had other engagement that Wednesday (May 11), so I had to wait for May 18 to interview him. At the end of my May 11 program, I announced that Jack would be my guest of my May 18 program. I did not think much about this.

The next day, May 19, the programming director called my law office and asked me to cancel the program. He told me that the interview was in violation with the FCC regulations. I told him that I didn't think that my invitation of Jack would violate any regulations. In addition, I told him that Jack's acceptance would increase the chance for Judy Chu to accept my invitation. I also emphasized to him that it was important for the Chinese population to know who they were voting for. He said that he needed to get approval from New York and asked me to draft an email to be sent to New York for approval.

On Friday, the response came back from New York asking the matter to be decided by the programming director, another host with no management responsibilities (as far as I know), and a vice president for marketing, to make sure that the invitation in conformance with the FCC regulations. I thought that the matter was settled since New York did not have any problem with doing a program with Jack.

However, that was not the end of this. On Monday, the station put out a notice to all hosts that all interviews of political candidates were henceforth forbidden due to the FCC regulations. I asked the station to show me legal authorities, which I was quite certain that they didn't exist, or apply the principle ex post facto (since my invitation predated the published policy that all invitations to all political candidates were forbidden).

This type of activities had a clear Chinese characteristics. Since China never has the rule of law, law is whatever the authority says. So, for a couple of thousands of years, the authority has been making rules to fit the instant situation. When the tomorrow's situation changes, they would change the law to fit their interests. In today's China, for instance, the court, the prosecution, and the police are run by the so-called political legal commission, which almost routinely headed by the police chief. In other words, the police chief determines the future of prosecutors and court officials, such as their promotion, salary, etc. The outcome is this type of practice, administrative edict in the form of universal rule.

The Chinese legal system is set up that way because its overwhelming priority for a couple of thousands of years has been to suppress disagreements. People in China today are still being sentenced to administrative detentions in China without the legal process for nothing but joking about the government behaviors.

Of course, the KAZN management could not make up laws like the Chinese police could do. But thanks to the federal government, which produces ever increasing complex laws and regulations, they could simply name their laws and make them whatever they like them to be to carry out their policies, which, just like in China, were tightly kept secrets.

After seeing the edict that all political interviews are forbidden, I could only imagine how many times the FCC regulations have been used by the station management to carry out its policies with unspeakable reasons.

According to the programming director, pursuant to the New York instruction, both the other host and the marketing VP voted no to my hosting of the show. Therefore, the decision was made by the majority. His decision does not even matter.

I immediately asked the other host, who said that he has no objection. Since the objection appear to come solely from a marketing vice president, I then asked programming director again to either show the authorities (statutes and legal precedence) of my violation, or ask the marketing people to stand down to let me do my program to inform our listeners about the people they are voting for.

That was Monday.

On Tuesday morning all fronts were quiet.

In Tuesday afternoon, the programming director forwarded to me an email from the station manager, who had henceforth not appeared, that I was fired, effective immediately, without reason.

My insistence of not canceling Jack has several reasons. First, Jack was the first politician who agreed to do the program by facing the Chinese-speaking public. That was precious. Second, more importantly, as I knew that the invitation did not violate any laws, I could not give Jack the FCC regulations as the reason for canceling the interview. In other words, if I cancel, I had to make up a lie to Jack.

Many people think that lawyers and liars, and thus it is part of my daily work to make up lies. For them, lawyer and liar are simply the same word with different spellings. But, contrary to the opinion, many people refuse to believe that many lawyers are squeeky clean. When so many people tell me that all lawyers are liars, I simply ask them this question: If all the lawyers are bad, how can the United States be a reasonable society (comparatively speaking)? Nobody has given me a satisfatory answer. The problem, of course, is that, when they look for a lawyer, they want someone to paint them a beautiful picture in the form of a guarentee. For lawyers, of course, lying is a behavior that gets easier and easier as one starts to practice it, until one practice that for no purposes whatsoever. In any case, I don't lie and don't want to start with Jack.

In addition, I didn't believe that any management should put their subordinates in the situation that they had to lie.

The most important reason for me to insist on seeing the FCC Regulation that I was violating is, of course, the fact that we need to inform the Chinese-speaking community about the political candidates whom they are voting for. That is the reason that I do the radio show in the first place. If I have to refrain from discussing political matters, why would I do the program in the first place?

During the conversation, one thing worth nothing is that the programming manager mentioned to me that Jack could buy advertising time from the station. Probably he wanted to get me to sell advertisements for the station. I didn't know the next step. Going to restaurant and extol food that I hate?

In any case, from a practical aspect, I did not give in, and put the choice in the hand of the station management, which made the move and fired me.

A very interesting question is why would the station so enthusiastically against interviewing political candidates. There are many people guessing the reasons on the Internet in response to my dismissal. I certainly have my conjecture, but a conjecture is only a conjecture.

Although the station fired me summarily and immediately, I did not have a chance to say goodbye to my radio listeners. However, as all my programs are uploaded to YouTube, on May 18, I posted my goodbye message, the response was nothing less than overwhelming and heartwarming. Many suggested that I continue the program over the Internet. This time, the Chinese government trolls held back. So there was almost no negative voices. That was moving.

The funny part of all this is that, if Jack had time to do the show on May 11, my interviewing him would become a fait accompli and the station would have no way to undo what is already done.

So as the fate goes, my radio career was over.

I believe that everybody should serve his (or her) community, with almost four years' of service, I have discharged that duty. Now, after I have earned my tranquility, I can go after some more pleasant pursuits in life.

All my KAZN programming can be found at:

http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng

(... to be continued)

First published on July 13, 2016

Contact information:

Facebook：http://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng

Blog: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/

Past AM1300 (KAZN) programs in Chinese: http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng

For law firm business (business, patent, trademark, and business-based immigration), please write to info@pujielaw.com or call 626-279-7200.

在党的生日 重温党的承诺（转帖）

愚民政策虽然造成了沙漠，却绝难征服民心。
——《解放日报》1942年4月23日

党对政府的领导，在形式上不是直接的管辖。党和政府是两种不同的组织系统，党不能对政府下命令。
——《董必武选集》第54-55页

共产党要夺取政权，要建立共产党的“一党专政”。这是一种恶意的造谣与诬蔑。共产党反对国民党的“一党专政”，但并不要建立共产党的“一党专政”。
——《刘少奇选集》上卷第172-177页

是要彻底地、充分地、有效地实行普选制，使人民能在实际上，享有“普通”、“平等”的选举权、被选举权，则必须如中山先生所说，在选举以前，“保障各地方团体及人民有选举之自由，有提出议案及宣传、讨论之自由。”也就是“确定人民有集会、结社、言论、出版的完全自由权。”否则，所谓选举权，仍不过是纸上的权利罢了。
——《新华日报》1944年2月2日

一切力量来自人民!一切光荣归于民主!
——《解放日报》1945年7月2日

可见民主和言论自由，实在是分不开的。我们应当把民主国先进的好例，作为我们实现民主的榜样。
——《新华日报》1944年4月19日

但是只有建立在言论出版集会结社的自由与民主选举政府的基础上面，才是有力的政治。（毛泽东答中外记者团）
——《解放日报》1944年6月13日

二十年来，尤其是最近几年，我们天天见的是“只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯。”政府所颁布的法令，其是否为人民着想，姑置不论。最使人愤慨的是连这样的法，政府并未遵守。政府天天要人民守法，而政府自己却天天违法。这样的作风，和民主二字相距十万八千里!所以民主云云者是真是假，我们卑之无甚高论，第一步先看政府所发的那些空头民主支票究竟兑现了百分之几?如果已经写在白纸上的黑字尚不能兑现，还有什么话可说?所以在政治协商会议开会以前，我们先要请把那些诺言来兑现，从这一点起码应做的小事上，望政府示人民以大信。
——《新华日报》1946年2月1日

国际民主既然与国内民主不可分割，所以要想参加到世界民主国家家庭中去的人们，就无法违反国内民主的原则。
——《新华日报》1944年1月19日

中国人民为争取民主而努力，所要的自然是真货，不是代用品。把一党专政化一下妆，当做民主的代用品，方法虽然巧妙，然而和人民的愿望相去十万八千里。中国的人民都在睁着眼看：不要拿民主的代用品来欺骗我们啊!
——《新华日报》1945年1月28日

他们以为中国实现民主政治，不是今天的事，而是若干年以后的事，他们希望中国人民知识与教育程度提高到欧美资产阶级民主国家那样，再来实现民主政治……正是在民主制度之下更容易教育和训练民众。
——《新华日报》1939年2月25日

毛泽东，中国共产党的最高政治家，曾经这样表示出中国人民的希望：“我们并不需要、亦不实行无产阶级专政。我们并不主张集体化，也不反对个人的活动--事实上，我们鼓励竞争和私人企业。在互惠的条件下，我们允许并欢迎外国对我们的地区作工商业的投资……我们相信着，并且实行着民主政治”。他说得很对。
——《新华日报》1945年4月19日

限制自由、镇压人民，完全是日德意法西斯的一脉真传，无论如何贴金绘彩，也没法让吃过自由果实的人士，尝出一点民主的甜味的。
——《新华日报》1944年3月5日

他们说这一套都是外国人的东西，决不适用于中国……原来，科学为求真理，而真理是不分国界的……现在固然再也没有顽固派用国情特殊，来反对科学--自然科学的真理了。只有在社会现象上，顽固派还在用八十年前顽固派用过的方法来反对真理……民主制度比不民主制度更好，这和机器工业比手工业生产更好一样，在外国如此，在中国也如此。而且也只能有在某国发展起来的民主，却没有只适用于某国的民主。有人说：中国虽然要民主，但中国的民主有点特别，是不给人民以自由的。这种说法的荒谬，也和说太阳历只适用外国、中国人只能用阴历一样。
——《新华日报》1944年5月17日

这些一切，只有证明全国人民及各民主党派对实施纲领的意见，首先是对人民自由的主张，是切实的，迫切需要实现的，万万“撤销”不得的。
——《新华日报》1946年1月18日

像林肯总统和罗斯福总统那样的民主的政治生活中产生的领袖，是虽在战时也一点不害怕民主制度的巡行的。他们不害怕民主的批评和指责，他们不害怕人民公意的渲泄，他们也不害怕足以影响他们的地位的全民的选举。他们不仅不害怕这些民.主制度，而且他们坚决地维护支持这些民主制度。因此他们才被人民选中了是大家所需要的人。
——《新华日报》1944年11月15日

这说明英美在战时也还是尊重人民的言论出版等民主自由的。英美两大民主国家采取这些重大措置，正说明英美两国是尊重和重视共产党及其他党派，和他们所代表的意见和力量的……同时，（他们）也有一些批评。他的批评对不对，是另外一回事。这种民主团结的精神，是值得赞扬和提倡效法的……全国各党派能够融洽的为共同目标奋斗到底，这是英美的民主精神，也是我国亟应提倡和效法的。
——《新华日报》1942年8月29日

这正如前天座谈会主席左舜生先生说的：“我们不去敦促，自由这一客人是永远不会进我们的门的”!
——《新华日报》1944年5月16日

我们认为最重要的先决条件有三个：一是保障人民的民主自由；二是开放党禁；三是实行地方自治。人民的自由和权利很多，但目前全国人民最迫切需要的自由，是人身居住的自由，是集会结社的自由，是言论出版的自由。
——《中共党史教学参考资料》

“现在是非变不可了!”“但如何变呢?”“我们只要看看人家。换句话说我们一切要民主。我们一切制度、政策以及其他种种，都要向着能配合世界转变上去改造。
——《新华日报》1945年4月8日

曾经有一种看法，以为民主可以等人家给与。以为天下有好心人把民主给人民，于是就有了等待这种“民主”，正如等待二百万元的头奖一样。但是中外古今的历史都证明了，民主是从人民的争取和斗争中得到的成果，决不是一种可以幸得的礼物。
——《新华日报》1945年7月3日

目前推行民主政治，主要关键在于结束一党治国。……因为此问题一日不解决，则国事势必包揽于一党之手；才智之士，无从引进；良好建议，不能实行。因而所谓民主，无论搬出何种花样，只是空有其名而已。
——《解放日报》1941年10月28日

从年幼的时候起，我们就觉得美国是个特别可亲的国家。我们相信，这该不单因为她没有强占过中国的土地，她也没对中国发动过侵略性的战争；更基本地说，中国人对美国的好感，是发源于从美国国民性中发散出来的民主的风度，博大的心怀。
——《新华日报》1943年7月4日