Talk:National People's Congress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Image[edit]

The complex shown in the picture on the top of the page looks more like the Historical Museum across the Tian'anmen Square from the Great Hall of the People. I propose that the picture be removed or replaced by a correct one. -- Tim 14:56 22 May 2006

No, this was not a picture of the great hall. I fixed it and used the image from the article of the great hall. --Authentic 08:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

China in the title?[edit]

Why is it necessary to have "of China" in the title? The Chinese version has no mention of China. I propose to move this to simply National People's Congress. The Knesset is a precendent. --Jiang 11:13 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I found it distractingly unnecessary when I first came across it too, since I was pretty sure only China has such a thing called the NPC. I still think so, after Googling for a while just now.
I think the intro does a very clear job pointing out this institution is of the PRC anyway. --Menchi 21:50 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Just deleted the National People's Congress redirect, history:
11:34 4 Jan 2003 . . User:Olivier (redirect)
If somebody disagree strongly, s/he can easily re-make that redirect later. If nobody disagree, anybody can move National People's Congress of China there now. --Menchi 21:57 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Done. How about State Council of China? Are there any other state councils in other countries? --Jiang 23:57 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know about state councils as national organizations, but there are subnational state councils in the USA, probably one for each US state. --Menchi 00:23 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

List of the RPC CCP meeting (please, can you help me to complete this)[edit]

List of the Chinese Communist Parti's Congress (fr:Liste des Congrès du Parti Communiste Chinois)

  1. 1921, 30 june, Shanghai Fondation and 1st Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  2. 2th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  3. 1923, may, Canton, 3th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  4. 4th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  5. 5th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  6. 1928, july, in Moscow, 6th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  7. 1945, 7th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  8. 1956, 8th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  9. 1969, 9th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  10. 1973, 10th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  11. 11th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  12. 12th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  13. 1987, 13th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  14. 14th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  15. 1997, 15th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  16. 16th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
  17. 17th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress

National People's Congress fr:Liste des Congrès national du peuple de la République de Chine

  1. 1954, 28 september, 1st National People's Congress
  2. 2th National People's Congress
  3. 3th National People's Congress
  4. ...
  5. 2005, march,

Central comity

  1. 1927, 7 August, Hankou.
  2. 1962, 8th Central comity

Removed[edit]

However, some proposals will be put to the vote even if there is opposition, if the Politburo deems it necessary.

This isn't true. Legislative practice in recent years has been to withdraw or postpone bills if they can't get a near unanimous vote. Roadrunner 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Says who? Your hardly a verifiable, reliable source. This article needs citations, not more unfounded claims. (I count 3 citations in the article at the moment…) Int21h (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Selection of Overseas Chinese Delegation to the NPC[edit]

How is the Overseas Chinese Delegation to the NPC selected? Do Overseas Chinese have the ability to vote for these delegates by ballot at the embassy? mdkarazim (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually they are Returned Overseas Chinese /归国华侨. Voting must be conducted personaly, can not be mail or at embassy. --刻意(Kèyì) 22:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Party composition of the NPC[edit]

Only about 70% of NPC delegates are Party members (see e.g. http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=34722&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=3f571ce395). The graphic in the box should be amended to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.6.90 (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there no official/non-official PRC release on this? Wouldn't one of the major PRC, HK, Taiwanese or international media networks have mentioned the membership before? Besides the The Jamestown Foundation? I mean, the Chinese legislature's membership is pretty important is't it? Int21h (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There are now figures for the party composition of the 12th Congress and even a graphic. These figures (2099 CCP members vs 888 "democratic parties and independents") are probably from the Chinese Wikipedia article on the NPC. I believe the ultimate source is actually the NPC website, which now has an online lookup for 12th congress delegate information. I will verify the numbers when I have time to click on their interface 2987 times. Rgr09 (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation Needed[edit]

In the second paragraph: "For the NPC to formally defeat a proposal put before it is a rare, but it has happened." That assertion needs verification -- most appropriately, an example. BartBee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this statement. This statement is a claim that a session of the NPC has at some point voted on a motion of some kind, any kind, and rejected it, meaning that a majority of the members voting against the motion. Apparently this has never happened. If it has happened, it should be easy to find an example in a reliable source. The burden of finding this example entirely on the editor who claims that this is the case. Without a source, the article cannot incorporate this statement. Rgr09 (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The NPC and legislation[edit]

The legislative function of the NPC is presented in obscure, vague, and misleading terms throughout the article. The following quotes illustrate this:

The drafting process of NPC legislation is governed by the Organic Law of the NPC (1982) and the NPC Procedural Rules (1989).

The phrase "drafting legislation" does not appear in either of these laws.

It begins with a small group, often of outside experts, who begin a draft

What is the source for this statement? What rules govern the selection of the group? Are ANY of the members of this "small group" delegates to the NPC? If not, why attribute the drafting of legislation by this group to the NPC?

Over time, this draft is considered by larger and larger groups, with an attempt made to maintain consensus at each step of the process.

What is the source of this statement? As a description of legislative procedure, it is so vague as to be meaningless. Some such process may well take place within government departments which want to promulgate various laws and regulations, but what is its relation to the NPC? As presented, it has none.

By the time the full NPC or NPCSC meets to consider the legislation, the major substantive elements of the draft legislation have largely been agreed to.

Agreed to by whom? What is the function of the NPC in this process? What is the source for this claim?

However, minor wording changes to the draft are often made at this stage.

What stage? What does minor mean? Who makes these changes? What is the source for this claim?

The process ends with a formal vote by the Standing Committee of the NPC or by the NPC in a plenary session.

What determines whether the Standing Committee or a Plenary Session votes on a legislative bill? If there are no restrictions on the type of legislation subject to approval by the Standing Committee, what is the point in even convening a plenary session?

There is more discussion throughout the article which more or less contradicts this description of the legislative process and adds layers of vagueness and evasion:

[The NPC] functions as a forum in which legislative proposals are drafted and debated with input from different parts of the government and outside technical experts

"Legislative proposals are drafted and debated" could not be phrased in a more vague and evasive manner. Drafted and debated by who, when, where, how? Input in what form? Input to who? What parts of the government? What outside experts?

"Functions as a forum" is also vague to the point of vapidity. A forum is not a legislature. I also question the use of the word forum to describe the NPC. The NPC has no hearings, no debates, no caucuses; not even speeches, except by invitation of the Presidium. It cannot do these things, there are almost 3000 members and they meet at most two weeks every year.

In practice, although the final votes on laws of the NPC often return a high affirmative vote, a great deal of legislative activity occurs in determining the content of the legislation to be voted on.

What is the source of this statement? What is meant by "often receive a high affirmative vote"? Has the NPC ever rejected a motion put before it? What is meant by "legislative activity"? With no hearings, debates, or speeches, except from a handful of people, usually not delegates, how is "legislative" business conducted?

With respect to proposals by the State Council of the People's Republic of China, the NPC has rejected a bill on maritime safety

Unsourced, the three references at the end of this sentence do not mention a word about a maritime safety bill, and untrue if "rejected" is supposed to mean that a majority of the NPC voted against the bill when it was presented. This has never happened.

it is no longer uncommon for the State Council to amend or withdraw a bill on account of NPC opposition as with the case of the fuel tax and the draft food safety law which have been repeatedly blocked by the NPC.

How did the NPC block these bills? On the web-page cited for the fuel tax, it says "Opposition from certain government departments is another key reason China has not yet adopted a national fuel taxation mechanism." This has nothing to do with the NPC. When departments disagree with each other, it is not resolved at the NPC. What do you think, departments lobby NPC delegates to vote for their proposals? Show one reference for such an idea.

In general then, this article presents the false impression that the NPC writes laws. The NPC Organic Law only mentions what it does when it receives proposals or bills. When the Presidium decides to present proposals or bills to the NPC, the NPC votes on them, and in every vote since the NPC was established in 1954 it has approved them. Rgr09 (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Now 2986 delegates[edit]

The mayor of Hangzhou, Shao Zhanwei 邵占维, chair of the Zhejiang delegation to the 12th session of the NPC, died of a heart attack on March 6, 2013, on the second day of first meeting of the NPC. Since he has not yet been replaced, there are currently only 2986 delegates. Rgr09 (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

12th Congress party composition[edit]

The article originally stated that 70 percent of the delegates were CCP members. This figure is for the 11th Congress, based on the following official estimate: CCP members 2099, non-partisan and other parties 888. Since this information is now out of date, I have removed it. My own count for the 12th Congress, based on the NPC database, is CCP members, 2157, undeclared 452 (the database entry for party is blank), non-partisan (无党派) 4, and the other 8 parties, 374. From these figures it seems that 72 percent of the delegates are CCP members, while the other parties hold only 12.5 percent. However, there is as yet no official announcement of these figures. In addition, it seems that some of the undeclared delegates are CCP members (I've found 2 so far), and some delegates listed as from the other 8 parties include CCP members with dual party membership, or even CCP members who hold an official position in another party but are in fact not members of that party! Rgr09 (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC) (Fixed percentages) Rgr09 (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Rubber-stamp legislature[edit]

This article originally included the following sentence:

However, for most of its existence, the NPC has acted as a nearly powerless rubber-stamp legislature, ratifying decisions that have already been made by the Communist Party of China and the country's executive organs. This has long been typical of legislatures in Communist countries.

This sentence has now been deleted by an editor who commented: "no evidence, no explanation, no reasoning even. NPOV violation" In fact, the NPC is the epitome of a rubber-stamp organ. In nearly 70 years of existence, it has not once rejected a single measure, motion, law, or candidate presented to it. This is what rubber-stamp means. The NPC closely reflects the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, which also in over 50 years of operation never once rejected a measure, motion, or candidate. The comparison of the NPC to political organs such as the SSSU is thus very apt. The original sentence was in no way NPOV, just a simple statement of fact. However, the sentence that immediately followed it, and was not deleted, reads:

Since the 1990s, the NPC has become a forum for mediating policy differences between different parts of the Party, the government, and groups of society.

This vague statement on "forums" and "mediating" has no evidence, no explanation, no reasoning even. More important, it has no source. I suggest therefore that the original sentence be reinstated and the one following it be deleted. Hoping for comments, otherwise I'll just go ahead and edit it. Rgr09 (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)